‹ Home
Exported

CSTE National ELR Workgroup

Welcome to the CSTE National ELR Workgroup Basecamp! We hope you will utilize the space to share resources with colleagues, start discussion threads, and identify topics for the workgroup to tackle on future calls. All workgroup members will have the opportunity to join. Please note that you may edit your notification preferences to suit your needs (and your email inbox). If you are not already on the ELR distribution list and would like to receive call communications, please enroll using this subscription form (copy and paste in browser): https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/5a91a4579952496682084796b82112e6
Becky Lampkins, Manager, Surveillance/Informatics Program at CSTEMegan Toe, CSTEScott Troppy, Surveillance Epidemiologist at MA DPHMeredith Lichtenstein, CSTEAmy Drake, NMJohn RobertsNancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics SpecialistErin Holt, TDHRita Altamore, EpidemiologistDavid DiCesareJason HallWalter Kemper, ELR Coordinator, NC DHHS Div of Public HealthJulie LuepkeCarmen Pugh, Labcorp Manager State Reporting at LabCorpTom Safranek +399 others
Posted by Riki Merrick ·

Nov 2 Nat ELR call topic

Hi all,
I have been made aware of new regulation in CO to include patient email and preferred language - which starts the conversation about updating the csv file format of the National Flatfile HL7 Generator. I am attaching the Change request (I may have more info around the LOE by the call, but wanted to get you all thinking about this) and the current version of the draft process. It would be good to understand:
1. How formal do we want to be / what elements of this plan do we want to implement
2. Are there other elements that we should consider
3. Thoughts around the specific request for CO

Looking forward to speaking with you all.
Riki

P.S. And while we are talking about the National Flatfile HL7 Generator: the new release is in the process of being posted :)
NatFFLHL7ChangeRequest_20211102.pptx 45.2 KB • Download
Proposed governance process for national ELR flat file_Revised 5_12.docx 27 KB • Download

Comments & Events

Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist
Hi -- I think this is a great start with a governance document, but to play devil's advocate, we need to have the discussion as to what labs are expected to send or request from ordering providers vs what states should get from providers via some sort of case reporting. So the inherent assumption I see is that we will add and have to have a reason not to add - that seems backward to me. We need to determine what types of variables are acceptable for a lab report instead of expecting labs to be the reporting conduit for just anything because the provider reporting is incomplete (and I'm not throwing stones here because our state doesn't have any electronic case reporting yet).

Thoughts?
Notified 261 people
Chris Baumgartner, Senior Data Exchange Manager Chris Baumgartner, Senior Data Exchange Manager
That is my soap box as well. The lab should only receive things on a lab order that make sense for a lab to have and need. The rest should be eCR or maybe a state repository for SDOH...

My two cents...

Chris Baumgartner
Senior Data Exchange Manager
Office of Public Health Outbreak Coordination, Informatics, and Surveillance (PHOCIS)
Division of Disease Control and Health Statistics
Washington State Department of Health
chris.baumgartner@doh.wa.gov<mailto:chris.baumgartner@doh.wa.gov>
206-418-5530 | www.doh.wa.gov<http://www.doh.wa.gov/>
[cid:image001.png@01D7CC99.58EC6930]<https://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom/SocialMedia>

P.S. I sometimes work flexible hours, so while it suits me to email now, I don't expect a response or action outside of your own working hours.

"This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the message."
image001.png 5.61 KB • Download
Notified 260 people
Mark Dittman Mark Dittman
1. If it is not specific lab data as in national standard HL7 specs, it has no business being in an ELR message. Period. And admit it, so few labs provide any extra data (AOE) that it is laughable that it be requested, let alone add more junk that "labs" which 'crawled out from under a rock COVID testers' are ever going to provide. I don't call getting "Unknown" for every AOE progress or good data. So many "labs" want to be compliant with Federal HHS that they add the AOE segments and give us "Unknown" for every single answer. How is adding more junk helping anyone?
2. Our state lab laughs at these "suggestions"
3. eCRs are good for little more than updating/providing more demographic data. They're voodoo data or should I say... "vapor data" compared to an ELR
4. If Federal HHS or CDC wants more non-lab data, let them set up the systems to catch it and let them enforce the reporting of it. I'll bet most states cannot or will not process all of the original AOE data into their systems in an actually meaningful and useful way. This was a joke from concept in 2020 and expanding it only adds to the absurdity of it all.


Mark Dittman | Project Manager, PA-ELR
PA Office of Administration | Health and Human Services Delivery Center
2150 Herr St| Harrisburg, PA 17105
Phone: 717.836.3512 | Fax: 717.783.3695
www.oa.pa.gov<http://www.oa.pa.gov/>
~WRD0001.jpg 823 Bytes • Download
Notified 260 people
Riki Merrick, Terminologist at APHL Riki Merrick, Terminologist at APHL
I like the discussion and where this is going - I agree wholeheartedly.
Where data elements are of importance for how you address / comminucate with the patient, then those may be of importance for the lab, if they have interactions with them (I think that's where preferred language may come in and maybe Gender Identity, too).
Looking forward to a lively discussion :)
Riki
Notified 260 people