‹ 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 Nancy Barrett ·

What would you like to see AIMS help with?

Hi all,
for ELR, what would jurisdictions like to see AIMS help with more beyond COVID-19?

Some ideas:
1. Continue to assist with getting lab results from labs and sorting them for different states? Both HL7 and interpartner formats?
2. More validation at AIMS on messages?
3. Assisting labs to move to full HL7 2.5.1 messaging?

I'd like to hear again about the state-to-state projects - maybe a good topic on the monthly call as well?

What do you want to hear from AIMS?

Thanks,
Nancy

Comments & Events

Karla Norsworthy Karla Norsworthy
I like the idea of discussing extending the AIMS hub to support additional (high volume) diseases.  It would be great if a similar approach could be used for cross jurisdiction for those labs.  (I am not sure if that is possible, but it would be great if when a state recognizes that it has an ELR for a patient from another state that could be sent to AIMS.  AIMS would do any normalization (big ask) and send it to the appropriate jurisdiction.  This hub and spoke model  seems like a more efficient approach than having each state/jurisdiction work out how to receive ELR from every other jurisdiction.  The current cross jurisdiction support takes a step in this direction by centralizing the connectivity - but it still requires each state to work with every other state on the specifics of the ELR formats and encodings
).
Notified 278 people
Megan Tompkins Megan Tompkins
Thanks much for coordinating. Alaska would appreciate additional validation prior to message routing based on patient address. We receive so many results where some well-intentioned software intermediary wouldn't allow a blank in patient address state, and as the first alphabetical state abbreviation, "AK" was populated. We get so many test patients, international addresses, or individuals who clearly don't want to be located but had to make a selection for that field. Perhaps an additional zip code check could be implemented to identify discrepant state/ zip pairings and route to both jurisdictions, at the very least?
~WRD0001.jpg 823 Bytes • Download
Notified 278 people