‹ 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 8

  • Recommend formation of a “Standards workgroup”, with representation from CDC & states, to govern the cycle of review for MMGs from the time it is posted for review, to “final”, and to the point of “onboarding” (This workgroup should also govern MMG version control).
  • What is the scope and function of this type of workgroup?

Comments & Events

Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist Nancy Barrett, Epi 4/PH Informatics Specialist
1. I think the data harmonization workgroup that CSTE is supporting can do a lot of this "standards" work for certain data variables.
2. A rotating membership in a general MMG standards group? however, folks who are deep into MMG assessment can see beyond one MMG.
3. Function and scope -- to ensure that (a) data harmonization is maintained across MMGs, even if that requires changes in how data is collected and used at both state and CDC programs; (b) the MMG process runs smoothly and realistic expectations to staff resources needed is communicated to states and CDC programs; and, (c) onboarding should not be the place where data quality/assurance is "discovered" and there needs to be clear expectations on how fast and when a state can be onboarded.
Notified 27 people