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).
What does early engagement in MMG development lifecycle look like?
Who should be involved in the MMG development lifecycle?
Where do certain responsibilities lie in the MMG development lifecycle?
Comments & Events
Nancy Barrett,Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist
1. In the past, states were asked to "volunteer" to be part of the MMG review process -- which was fairly thorough. However, given that most of us states had not even done one of the V1 PHIN reporting, I think the importance was lost (even though some of us tried to get our staff engaged). Now, I think there is better awareness and understanding so it would/should be easier to get program staff engaged -- from the beginning of the MMG lifecycle. 2. Select program SMEs from a variety of states to represent different views on how that MMGs data is collected at the state level. CDC program staff, not just from NMI, but from the actual programs (not just the NETSS/date person equivalent, but program staff) so that discussion on differences in variable collection and intrepretation can occur earlier in the cycle. 3. CDC programs should be updating and looking at how they have collected/viewed data over time, and make necessary changes, just like states have to do. States need to participate or know who is participating that is similar to their process. Everyone needs to agree that the minimum data necessary for PH work and response is what is needed, and that should be the basis for the MMG -- with all sides agreeing to get to good not perfect. :-)
Notified 27 people
Rachelle Boulton
I agree with Nancy. I don't have too much to add except to say that harmonization and standardization of data across guides needs to be a defined step in the MMG development process.
Now, I think there is better awareness and understanding so it would/should be easier to get program staff engaged -- from the beginning of the MMG lifecycle.
2. Select program SMEs from a variety of states to represent different views on how that MMGs data is collected at the state level. CDC program staff, not just from NMI, but from the actual programs (not just the NETSS/date person equivalent, but program staff) so that discussion on differences in variable collection and intrepretation can occur earlier in the cycle.
3. CDC programs should be updating and looking at how they have collected/viewed data over time, and make necessary changes, just like states have to do. States need to participate or know who is participating that is similar to their process. Everyone needs to agree that the minimum data necessary for PH work and response is what is needed, and that should be the basis for the MMG -- with all sides agreeing to get to good not perfect. :-)