‹ Home
Exported

NNDSS Evaluation Workgroup

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).
Becky Lampkins, Manager, Surveillance/Informatics Program at CSTEMeredith Lichtenstein, CSTENancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics SpecialistShaily Krishan, Program Manager at CSTEKathy Turner, Deputy State Epidemiologist at IDElandis Miller, CSTEMisty Johnson, Informatician, WI DHSMegan PatelMolly CrockettNatalie RaketichSita SmithCaitlin LawRachelle BoultonRebecca EarlyMarijoyce Naguit +22 others
Letter Topic Thread by Shaily Krishan ·

💡 Letter Thread 5

  • Is there variation in the priority assignment of data elements across guides?
  • Have states received conflicting feedback on the priority assignment of data elements?
  • How to make the data element priority assignment a collaborative process?
  • Create standards/criteria for assigning priority MMG data elements

Comments & Events

Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist
1. YES! FDD MMG had a lot of this.
2. Somewhat -- in FDD.
3. CDC has to look at why it is collecting data from states and ask -- what public health purpose at the national level does collecting this data serve? States then need to look at their grant requirements, which should spell out what data and why, and come to some agreement on what data will be collected given resource limitations and the needs of each state or territory to meet the public health interests of their state/territories population. We should not be collecting data for 'research' or other non-PH data purposes, unless there is a separately funded study for that purpose. 
I would say that STD program probably has the best ways to make this a more collaborative process because they have a lot of meetings and collaborations set up.
4. I would see my comments in item 3 -- why are we collecting this data and for what purpose? 
Notified 27 people
Rachelle Boulton Rachelle Boulton
I think the assignment of priority needs to be a joint CDC/state effort. There needs to be a clear need to collect the information. We need to look back at the purpose of national notifiable diseases - monitoring disease trends, identifying populations/geographic areas at high risk, developing/assessing prevention and control strategies, developing public health policies. We should not be collecting any data that cannot be directly tied to these activities. For example - physician names/addresses/phone numbers, accession numbers, medical record numbers - none of these are analyzable. This is information that we use to identify patients and collect supplemental information, all of which is a state/local role. CDC does not need this data (aside from identifiers that link patients across data sets). The CSTE brief from the DSWG has already done some work on some key variables that are problematic. I'd like to see some more structure placed around the process for identifying what data is of interest to public health and what the priority for collection needs to be - similar to the structure that is happening with the NNC criteria workgroup. 
Notified 30 people
Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist
Here, Here! What Rachelle said <clapping>
Notified 30 people