1. Public Health Reporting Initiative June 27, 2012

2. Agenda TopicTime Allotted Welcome / Agenda Overview - John Stinn4:00 - 4:05 Functional Requirements Update – Lise Stevens / Anna Orlova 4:05 - 4:15 Data Mapping Update – Nikolay Lipskiy / John Stinn4:15 – 4:25 Stage 3 Readiness & Implementation Guide Next Steps – Seth Foldy 4:25 – 5:00 Adjourn4:50 – 5:00

3. Functional Requirements Timeline TaskDue Date Co-leads Review Draft6/20 – COMPLETE Post Revised Draft to the Wiki6/22 – COMPLETE Announce Start of Public Comment Period Include instructions for posting comments to the wiki (preferred) Provide alternate methods of providing comments as needed 7/11 Co-leads available to meet with Specialized Groups from PH Associations or Others (as needed) 7/23 – 7/27 Public Comment Period Closed8/1 Resolve Comments8/1 – 8/8 Post Final Version to Wiki for Consensus8/8 Consensus Voting Closed8/15

4. Data Harmonization Profile Timeline TaskDue Date User Story Submitters Review and Finalize domain-level Data Elements6/14 – COMPLETE Clean-up Final Spreadsheets of Domain-level Data Elements, Incorporate CEDD Mapping, and Update Data Harmonization Profile Document 6/14 – 6/27 Develop “Initiative-level” Data Elements & Incorporate into Data Harmonization Profile 6/27 – 7/11 Post Data Elements Spreadsheets & Data Harmonization Profile Document to Wiki for Public Comment Include instructions for posting comments to the wiki (preferred) Provide alternate methods of providing comments as needed 7/11 Co-leads available to meet with Specialized Groups from PH Associations or Others (as needed) 7/23 – 7/27 Public Comment Period Closed8/1 Resolve Comments8/1 – 8/8 Post Final Version to Wiki for Consensus8/8 Consensus Voting Closed8/15

5. Functional Requirements & Data Harmonization – Key Points for Public Comment Functional Requirements: – Intended to represent ALL public health reporting from EHR – Provides a scalable foundation Data Harmonization: – Reduces variability across programs – Provides foundation for standards and vocabulary selection – Begins consensus building

6. Stage 3 Readiness Sub-workgroup: Goal Create an implementation specification for consideration to be included in stage 3 “Core” spec + Extensions – 7 Tier 1 candidates – Tier 2 participants (mostly observers)

7. Proposal Tier 1: 7 stories appear with relatively high level of readiness; focus on unidirectional; broad national scope Tier 2: 7 stories with either less readiness and/or focus on bidirectional and/or lesser scope Goal: a process that permits all to benefit while maximizing chance for pilot-tested Stage 3 Implementation Specification by November 2012 – All engaged parties attempt to achieve consensus. If Tier 2 issues threaten timely consensus on an issue they agree to withdraw on that issue. Tier 1 Agencies & Associations Tier 2 Agencies & Associations EHR, PH, and Intermediary System Vendors

8. Possible Process 1.Set ground rules 2.Build consensus on common “core” data elements 3.Develop consensus on format - HL7 2.x, CDA or both 4.Address how “core” elements and different “extension” elements are managed 5.Address how “trigger” and “filter” knowledge base should function 6.Document decisions in Implementation Guide (support team) – Review progress in weekly checkpoints

9. Members and Support Team Lead: Seth Foldy Members: – User Story Submitters – Federal Agency Reps – Association / Member Reps – EHR Vendors / PH IT vendors / staff Support Team – Erik Pupo, SME – Brian Castor, PM – Lindsay Brown, Business Analyst – Ashley Swain, Shalina Wadhani – IG Technical Writing

10. Timeline / Commitment Estimated time commitment: – Meeting: 1.5 – 2 hours per week – Homework: 1 - 2 hours per week If you are interested in helping with this work, email lrbrown@cdc.gov lrbrown@cdc.gov TaskDue Date Meetings with User Story Submitters, Federal Partners, and Association Partners to introduce PHRI, Implementation Guide development, gain buy-in and survey the vendor landscape 6/26 – 7/10 Weekly Meeting Kick-offWeek of 6/17 (either Tues or Thurs) Final Implementation Guide completed9/25 (tentative)

11. Risks / Dependencies Aggressive timeline Member (or proxy) participation Base Standard “fit” Future dependency: Pilot setting