‹ Home
Exported

eCR/RCKMS Community of Practice

The purpose of the eCR/RCKMS Community of Practice Basecamp is to provide staff from state, local, territorial, and tribal public health agencies with a venue to participate in peer-to-peer discussions pertaining to using RCKMS. This Basecamp is not intended for formal communications about RCKMS or eCR and will not be moderated by CSTE staff. For technical issues or assistance with RCKMS, please visit www.rckms.org to submit a ticket. Disclaimer: The statements and responses posted on the eCR/RCKMS Community of Practice are solely the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or CSTE.
Becky Lampkins, Manager, Surveillance/Informatics Program at CSTEMeredith Lichtenstein, CSTELaura ErhartNancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics SpecialistRita Altamore, EpidemiologistDavid DiCesareWalter Kemper, ELR Coordinator, NC DHHS Div of Public HealthAmanda Payne, Senior Consultant at J Michael ConsultingJohn Satre, Informatician at Iowa Department of Public HealthShaily Krishan, Program Manager at CSTEJudie HyunKathy Turner, Deputy State Epidemiologist at IDSara Robinson, ID Epi Program Director at Maine CDCMisty Johnson, Informatician, WI DHSCrystal Snare +376 others
General by Shaily Krishan ·

✨ California Serogroup Viruses

Based on an RCKMS user request, the RCKMS Content Team will be creating new Reporting Specifications for the California serogroup viruses for the January 2023 content release.  These new Reporting Specifications will include: 
 
  • Jamestown Canyon virus disease
  • Keystone virus disease
  • La Crosse virus disease
  • Snowshoe hare virus disease
  • Trivittatus virus disease
 
The Content Team plans to also keep the California serogroup virus disease Reporting Specification, but is requesting input on whether this condition should: 

  1. Include all California serogroup viruses, even those with separate Reporting Specifications listed above, or
  2. Include only laboratory testing and diagnoses for California serogroup virus, not the specific viruses listed above 
Note: If the inclusive approach (1) is taken, a jurisdiction that authors both California serogroup virus disease and the new Reporting Specifications would receive a Reportability Response for both conditions when applicable. 

Please respond to this post with your feedback/ comments. Thanks!

Comments & Events

Sara Mader Sara Mader
Hello RCKMS team,
I reached out to our Epi's here in WI and here is their response:
We have a strong preference for option 2, to avoid receiving duplicate reports for both a specific virus and CA serogroup virus. 
Thanks
Sara
Notified 273 people
Sue Speers, Epidemiologist at Connecticut Department of Public Health Sue Speers, Epidemiologist
CT would also prefer option 2. Thank you
Notified 272 people
Darren Frank, Epidemiologist at Indiana State Department of Health Darren Frank, Epidemiologist
Thanks for polling! IN is also in favor of option 2. Hope you all have a nice weekend!
-Darren
Notified 272 people
Ann Kayser Ann Kayser
MN votes for for option 2.
Notified 272 people
John Satre, Informatician at Iowa Department of Public Health John Satre, Informatician
Sorry ~ I've been out. Iowa opts for option #2.
Notified 272 people
Deb Loniewski Deb Loniewski
Here's the response and comments from Michigan.

Hi Deb,
 
We would elect #2 as well.  We would want to report the specific CGV group virus if we know it.  CGV is typically the default if testing cannot identify the more specific virus in that group.
 
Hope that helps!   Kim
 
Kimberly Signs, DVM
Emerging & Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Section
Bureau of Infectious Disease Prevention
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
Notified 272 people
Sita Smith Sita Smith
I've been out too. MA votes for #2
Notified 271 people
Kanishka, Epidemiologist at Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Kanishka, Epidemiologist
Hello,
Nebraska would prefer to go with the inclusive approach. Hence, option 1 for us.

Thanks!
Notified 272 people
Natalie Raketich Natalie Raketich
Thank you all for your input! 

Most jurisdictions preferred option 2 (not inclusive), though we did hear from some jurisdictions who wanted to stay with option 1 (inclusive). 

Based on this, we are making the following updates: 

• Create new, not inclusive, default logic to accommodate the majority of jurisdictions
• Move the current, inclusive logic to optional so other jurisdictions can still receive all reports for California Serogroup Viruses, even if duplicative

Please let us know if anyone has concerns with this approach.

Thanks!
Natalie
Notified 278 people
Sepehr Arshadmansab, Epidemiologist at Texas Department of State Health Services Sepehr Arshadmansab, Epidemiologist
Good afternoon,

Thank you for update. Our epis in our Zoonosis Control Branch did have some inquiries about the 2 options. Our epis indicated that there is no such virus as “California serogroup virus”, it’s California encephalitis virus which is the namesake originator of the serogroup of viruses that include the others. Can you please provide the explanation of what is meant by “California serogroup virus” in option 2?

Best regards,

Sepehr Arshadmansab, MPH
Health Informatics Specialist
Public Health Informatics & Data Exchange Group
Laboratory and Infectious Disease Services Division
Texas Department of State Health Services
Phone: (512) 839-9784 (cell)
dshs.texas.gov<http://dshs.texas.gov/.>

Due to our department’s coronavirus response, we are working modified work schedules.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and the information contained in it relate to cases or suspected cases of diseases or health conditions and is confidential pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code §81.046. Forwarding or otherwise distributing (either electronically or in print) to unauthorized individuals is prohibited.
~WRD0001.jpg 823 Bytes • Download
Notified 278 people
Steve Eichner Steve Eichner
Good afternoon!

Thanks for the question!

I think there may have been an inadvertent edit somewhere along the line, changing “viruses” to “virus.” I was not in the thread so can’t offer additional insights.

From the attached email, it would appear that California Serogroup Viruses may have been the intended text as the serogroup label, not a specific virus unto itself.

Please email Natalie, the originator of the attached email, for confirmation/clarification.

Steve
Notified 278 people
Natalie Raketich Natalie Raketich
 Hi Sepehr and Steve, 

The current RCKMS Reporting Specification (California serogroup virus disease) has been inclusive of any of the California serogroup viruses.  With the addition of separate Reporting Specifications for specific California serogroup viruses (Jamestown Canyon virus, La Crosse virus, etc.), we are updating the existing Reporting Specification to provide some options to jurisdictions. 

If you still want to receive all California serogroup viruses under one condition, the existing criteria and logic will still be available as optional. 

If you only want to receive reports for California serogroup viruses that are not further specified (e.g., a LOINC Code for California serogroup RNA, not Jamestown canyon virus RNA), that will be available as the default in the updated Reporting Specification. 

Let me know if that helps or if I haven't fully understood the question. 

Thanks!
Natalie
Notified 278 people