Welcome to the NMI Evaluation Workgroup Basecamp! We will use this site as a repository for meeting and workgroup documents, and also to share ideas about evaluating and identifying improvements in processes related to MMG implementation, MMG onboarding, MMG maintenance, and Technical Assistance (TA).
MMG Implementation/ Onboarding issues for Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases (FDD) MMG
Engaging with CDC Programs for FDD MMG
Comments & Events
Nancy Barrett,Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist
Although Alycia is out, I can add some comments here that I think I've seen others say as well. 1. Saying that GenV2 is applied the same across MMGs is not true. We think the number of GenV2 variables should either be reduced, or only applied as that group to the notifiables that will not collect additional extended information for CDC. And FDD had its own GenV2 called the Foodnet variables. Maybe this only applied to EIP sites like CT, but added complexity. 2. Priority data variables varied greatly across all of these diseases in this MMG making updating and checking our surveillance system a bit trickier. Some variation would be expected, but Alycia reported that some elements were a priority 1 for some and a priority 3 for other diseases for the same data element. 3. As for other MMGs, the CDC interpretation of what a data variable meant, how it was collected, and how it was recorded into the surveillance systems differed a great deal. I presented a table in the last eSHARE call showing this. 4. CDC is not resourcing their side of this process sufficiently -- we dedicated all of our resources to being able to onboard by the end of October (before Alycia went out on maternity leave) but were put on hold by CDC. 5. Cohorts have limits -- cohorts are great for a group of states to work together and set some timelines for staff resourcing, but the onboarding can only be done one state at a time. So the expectation should be set that in a cohort the goal is to onboard that group of states in a certain timeframe and get all of those states onboarded, but each state will be in a queue for the actual onboarding step.
1. Saying that GenV2 is applied the same across MMGs is not true. We think the number of GenV2 variables should either be reduced, or only applied as that group to the notifiables that will not collect additional extended information for CDC. And FDD had its own GenV2 called the Foodnet variables. Maybe this only applied to EIP sites like CT, but added complexity.
2. Priority data variables varied greatly across all of these diseases in this MMG making updating and checking our surveillance system a bit trickier. Some variation would be expected, but Alycia reported that some elements were a priority 1 for some and a priority 3 for other diseases for the same data element.
3. As for other MMGs, the CDC interpretation of what a data variable meant, how it was collected, and how it was recorded into the surveillance systems differed a great deal. I presented a table in the last eSHARE call showing this.
4. CDC is not resourcing their side of this process sufficiently -- we dedicated all of our resources to being able to onboard by the end of October (before Alycia went out on maternity leave) but were put on hold by CDC.
5. Cohorts have limits -- cohorts are great for a group of states to work together and set some timelines for staff resourcing, but the onboarding can only be done one state at a time. So the expectation should be set that in a cohort the goal is to onboard that group of states in a certain timeframe and get all of those states onboarded, but each state will be in a queue for the actual onboarding step.