‹ 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
Authoring by Virginia Warren ·

✅ If eICRs are generated and transmitted immediately based on trigger codes, what is the point of the reporting time frame in RCKMS?

We can reflect a state's required reporting time frame within RCKMS (see screen shot below).  However, I was wondering if this is even necessary practically speaking if the eICRs get automatically triggered and transmitted? It's not like indicating a 2 day reporting time frame will cause a delay in the transmission of eICRS, will it?
image.png 27.6 KB • Download
Amy Lai 👍

Comments & Events

Marisa Hopper, Epidemiologist at Tennessee Department of Health Marisa Hopper, Epidemiologist
I wondered about that too. But my rationale for the timeframes, and I might be wrong, is to indicate our actual reporting expectation. For example, if a condition is immediately reportable but we don't get the message for 4 days, we can take that back to the facility and ask them to look into the cause of the delay. 

We had a somewhat similar situation with the infection control team at a hospital. One epidemiologist wanted them to call immediately if they had a patient with a vector borne illness so the investigation could start right away. The infection control team responded with while they will try to call right away, public health can't expect, or ask them to because those weren't immediately reportable conditions.
Claudia Brogan, RCKMS Community of Practice Facilitator Good question!
Notified 176 people
Virginia Warren, Washington State Department of Health Virginia Warren
Hi Marisa Hopper, Epidemiologist at Tennessee Department of Health Marisa ! Thank you for your reply.  Based on some of the offline feedback I got on this question, I have the same understanding as you now. The reporting time frames we put in will populate the reportability response and aren't impacting the timing of eICR generation/transmission. 
...

Thank you for your helpful examples! Here is one thing I have thought about related to this topic: 

Because of current limitations of language within RCKMS, there may be occasions in which the RR is populated with inaccurate information about a reporting time frame. 
 
For example, let's say your time frame for a condition is "3 business days." Instead of saying that the condition is reportable within “3 business days,” the RR can only say that a condition is reportable within “3 days.” 

For another example, let's say your time frame for chronic hep B is "3 days" but your time frame for acute hep B is "24 hours." Since both acute and chronic hep B have to be authored under the same condition specification, instead of saying that a chronic case of hepatitis B is reportable within "3 days," the RR might have to indicate it is reportable within "24 hours" because you decide to indicate the earlier reporting time frame associated with acute hep b to be safe. 
Amy Lai Good points
Notified 180 people
Misty Johnson, Informatician, WI DHS Misty Johnson, Informatician, WI DHS
Very good points!
Notified 180 people