updates on the biosense program redesign: 2011 public health preparedness summit
DESCRIPTION
Most state and local health departments are involved in on-going traditional disease surveillance and are beginning to access information through health information exchange with clinical partners. Biosurveillance initiatives offer the opportunity to leverage these existing initiatives while providing important data to protect community health. Building on these existing activities and relationships is key to the success of national initiatives such as BioSense Redesign and meaningful use of electronic health records as a component of the evolving nationwide health information network (NHIN). During this session/workshop, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) in association with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will address discuss the BioSense redesign effort and provide opportunities for extended engagement of local and state health officials. This workshop encourages the participation of public health emergency responders, and local public health personnel involved in bio-surveillance for emergency preparedness and response within their jurisdictions.TRANSCRIPT
Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services
Public Health Surveillance Program Office
Updates on the BioSense Program Redesign
Taha A. Kass-Hout, MD, MSDeputy Director for Information Science (Acting) and BioSense Program Manager
Division of Notifiable Diseases and Healthcare Information (DNDHI, Proposed)
Public Health Surveillance Program Office (PHSPO)
Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (OSELS)
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
Any views or opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC, HHS, or any other entity of the United States
government. Furthermore, the use of any product names, trade names, images, or commercial sources is for identification purposes only,
and does not imply endorsement or government sanction by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2011 Public Health Preparedness Summit
Session WS-16—Location International 10Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:30 PM- 5:30 PM
Atlanta, GA, USA – February 22-25, 2011
The Public Health Surveillance Challenge
Public Health
Surveillance is a global
challenge
The importance of
timely detection
Limitations of
traditional reporting
systems
Hierarchical lines of
reporting
Variance across different
countries
Multitude of potential
data sources
Real-world lessons
from SARS and H1N1
Limitations of Current Approaches
Can’t mine
all possible sources
all data types
Delay required for searching,
curating and processing
Massive bandwidth and
processing requirements
Resource limited process
(machine and human)
Policies that hinder data
sharing
Little sharing of standards,
specifications, and lessons
learned
“Federal agencies must focus on consolidating existing data
centers, reducing the need for infrastructure growth by
implementing a “Cloud First” policy for services, and
increasing their use of available cloud and shared services.”
Vivek Kundra, Fed CIO.
The Opportunity in MUse: Support Case- and Event-Based Surveillance
EHRs and Health Information Exchanges can Improve Public Health Surveillance
Enhanced Situation Awareness
Syndromic surveillance exploits more elements from the EHR for earlier characterization
• can limit spread of outbreak or monitor severity of pandemics, and reduce morbidity and mortality
Automated collection and reporting encourages more care provider organizations to participate
Timely and More Complete Notifiable Disease Reporting
Studies have shown that electronically based reporting for STDs averages 7.9 days earlier than
spontaneous reporting, allowing:
• 52% increase in treating patients in 2 weeks
• 28% increase in reaching at risk subject by phone
Automation of this task is popular with healthcare provides since it relieves a perceived burden
Better Prevention and Surveillance or Chronic Conditions
Addresses major factors in rising healthcare costs
Data can be used for outcome-based incentives for best practices
Simple ABCDs (Aspirin Therapy, Blood Pressure Screening, Cholesterol Screening, Smoking Cessation, and
Diabetes) Interventions can reduce the number of avoidable deaths
• CDC’s Demonstrating the Preventive Care Value of HIEs (DPCVCHIE) project is using national standards and
capabilities to evaluate the effectiveness of ABCDs interventions
Consistency of Reporting | Reduced Latency | More Completeness of Reporting
BioSense Program
Civilian Hospitals
• ~640 facilities [~12% ED coverage in US, patchy geo
coverage] [Chief complaints: median 24-hour
latency, Diagnoses: median 6 days latency]
• 8 health department sending data from 482
hospitals
• 165 facilities reporting ED data directly to CDC
or a health department
Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense
• ~1400 facilities in 50 states, District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico [final diagnosis ~2->5 days latency]
National Labs [LabCorp and Quest]
• 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
[24-hour latency]
Hospital Labs
• 49 hospital labs in 17 states/jurisdictions [24-hours
latency]
Pharmacies
• 50,000 (27,000 Active) in 50 states [24-hour latency]
BioSense Program RedesignUpdated Vision: Beyond early detection Beyond syndromic
The goal of the redesign effort is to be able to provide
Nationwide and regional Situation Awareness for all hazards health-related
events (beyond bioterrorism) and to support national, state, and local responses
to those events
Multiple uses to support your public health Situation Awareness; routine public
health practice; and improved health outcomes and public health
Our strategy is to increase BioSense Program participation and
utility and to support local and state jurisdictions’ health
monitoring infrastructure and workforce capacity
Requires collaboration with other CDC Programs and federal agencies
– 7 years of experience dealing with timely healthcare data (Outpatient, ED, Inpatient, Census,Laboratory, Radiology, Pharmacy, etc.)
– Infrastructure reconfigured for high performance, scalability and Meaningful Use (MUse)
A User-Centered Approach
Building the Base
Connecting the Dots
Sharing Information
BioSense Program Redesign A 3-Pronged Approach
Technical Expert Panel (TEP)—Current Status
David Buckeridge
McGill University
Julia Gunn
National Association of County
and City Health Officials
(NACCHO)
Jim Kirkwood
Association of State and
Territorial Health Officers
(ASTHO)
Denise Love
National Association of Health
Data Organizations (NAHDO)
Judy Murphy
Aurora Health System
Marc Paladini
NYC Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
Tom Safranek, Lisa Ferland,
Richard Hopkins
Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists (CSTE)
Walter G. Suarez
Kaiser Permanente
BioSense Program RedesignSelected Collaborations
Gulf Oil Spill-associated surveillance AL, FL, LA, MS, TX, NCEH, CDC EOC+
Dengue case detection Dengue Branch, FL Dept of Health, VA
State-based asthma surveillance AL Dept of Health, VA, DoD
Non-acute dental conditions Division of Oral Health, NC DoH, NCDetect
Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis Poxvirus & Rabies Branch
Influenza-like illness surveillance Influenza Division
Contribution to Distribute
ISDS MUse Workgroup
Enhanced analytics methods
https://sites.google.com/site/changepointanalysis
BioSense Program RedesignSelected Stakeholders
BioSense Program RedesignStakeholder Involvement
Seeking individuals from professional organizations to participate in redesign effort
Coordinating presence at national conferences
Identifying individuals to update the map on the collaboration site
Disseminating redesign project information through communication channels
Coverage Map
Requirements Gathering
Community Forum
http://biosenseredesign.org
Environmental Scan
The purpose of the environmental scan is to assess current best
practices in surveillance and extract from them requirements to
aid in the BioSense Redesign
Note: The map has been initially populated with public health
jurisdictions' self-reported data obtained through Distribute
Key Sources of Information
Published literature
BioSense evaluations and roundtables
Surveys from our partner organizations
User requirement gathering sessions
Site profiles from the Distribute Project
Database of frequently used syndromic surveillance
systems
Collaboration Web Site Coverage Map
BioSense Redesign Coverage Map
Data fields selected from Distribute Site Profiles include:
Type of jurisdiction (i.e., state, county, city)
Surveillance system(s) used by site
Total number of emergency care and urgent care facilities in
the jurisdiction, including pediatric facilities
Number of reporting emergency care and urgent care facilities,
including pediatric facilities
Estimated population coverage
Approximate number of emergency department (ED) visits
captured
BioSense Redesign Coverage Map
Contributing BioSense facilities
925 VA hospitals
362 U.S. Dept. of Defense healthcare facilities
661 Private hospitals and hospital systems
2,780 National laboratories
49,365 Pharmacies
Populating the Coverage Map: Methods
Identifying Editors
Historic partnership with BioSense or CDC
Newsletter, website announcements (CSTE, ASTHO,
NACCHO, ISDS)
Volunteers from Collaboration Site
Coverage Map Editors
18 editors, representing 15 jurisdictions
Arizona ▪ New York City
Cook County, IL ▪ New York State
Florida ▪ Philadelphia, PA
Georgia ▪ San Diego County, CA
Iowa ▪ Utah
Maryland ▪ Virginia
North Dakota ▪ Wyoming
New Hampshire
Jurisdictions Represented on Coverage Map (n=42)
Type of Jurisdiction
States
61%
Regions
29%
Cities
10%
Percentage of ED Coverage by Jurisdiction (n=42)
Average ED coverage is 58%
Frequency of Jurisdictions Using BioSense (n=42)
Not Using BioSense
66%
Using BioSense
34%
Percentage of Systems (other than BioSense) Used (n=27)
ESSENCE
23%
Other
15%
HMS
11%
SAS, Other
11%
EARS
8%
RODS
8%
Orion
3%
ESSENCE, RODS
3%
ESSENCE, Other
3%
EARS, Other
3%
SAS
3%
EARS, Orion, Other
3%
ESSENCE, EARS, SAS
3%
AEGIS
3%
BioSense Program RedesignStakeholder Involvement
September 1st thru January 17th 2011
BIOSENSE REDESIGN USER REQUIREMENTS
-BioSense program-BioSense system Canned vs. customized
reports
Data sharing policies, memorandums of understanding, contracts, and/or formal
agreements between jurisdictions
Skilled workers: data analysis, interpretation and reporting,
and technical support Data views within and across jurisdictions
One-on-One User Sessions
Group User Sessions
Webinars
Collaboration Web Site
Feedback Forums
Data validationGraphs and charts, maps,
aggregate data, detailed-level data, and tabulated data
Data for an event vs.
routine surveillance
BioSense Program RedesignStakeholder Involvement
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA)
Feedback Forums to Date
PHSA Feedback
Forums Dates
*Respondents
TotalLocal State National Hospital Reg. HIE Unknown
PHSA Post 1 10/29/10 5 3 1 0 0 2 11
PHSA Post 2 11/02/108 7 0 0 2 2 19
PHSA Post 3 11/12/10 12 13 0 1 0 3 29
PHSA Post 4 11/24/10 11 8 0 0 0 0 20
PHSA Post 5 12/20/10 12 11 1 1 0 0 25
PHSA Post 6 01/28/11 6 15 0 1 0 0 22
Total 54 57 2 2 2 7 124
Source: Feedback Forum Posts 1-5, Available under “Your Requirements” at: https://sites.google.com/site/biosenseredesign
Total Number of Respondents = 124; September 1 – February 9, 2010
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA) Feedback Forums to Date
*Does not exclude returning jurisdictions.
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA) Feedback Forums to Date
A majority of stakeholders (86% from Post 3 as of January 2011)
feel that there is value in viewing a regional or national view to
achieve public health situation awareness.
A large number of jurisdictions (73% from Post 2 as of November
2010) have echoed that a regional and national view to obtain public
health situation awareness is strengthened in the presence of
policies, memorandums of understanding (MOUs), contracts, or
formal agreements for data sharing.
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA) Feedback Forums to Date
The following data sources were predominantly ranked as “very
important” by most state and local jurisdictions for routine
monitoring/surveillance (Post 5 as of January 11, 2011):
Reportable disease data by 88.9% of state and 81.8% of local
jurisdictions participating in the post.
Lab results data by 66.7% of state and 81.8% of local jurisdictions that
participated in the post.
Syndromic surveillance data by 66.7% of state and 72.7% of local
jurisdictions participating in the post.
Clinical data by 54.5% of local jurisdictions participating in the post.
Communicable disease data by 63.6% of local jurisdictions
participating in the post.
Sample of Current Findings
The following data sources were predominantly ranked as “very
important” by most state and local jurisdictions for surveillance
during an event (Post 5 as of January 11, 2011):
Syndromic surveillance data by 88.9% of state and 54.5% of local
jurisdictions participating in the post.
Communicable disease data by 88.9% of state and 54.5% of local
jurisdictions participating in the post.
Inpatient data by 55.6% of state and 54.5% of local jurisdictions that
participated in the post.
Reportable disease data by 77.8% of state and 72.7% of local
jurisdictions participating in the post.
Lab results data by 77.8% of state and 63.6% of local jurisdictions that
participated in the post.
Clinical data by 54.5% of local jurisdictions participating in the post.
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA) Feedback Forums to Date
Preferred data views for routine surveillance by state and local jurisdictions responding to Post 3 as of February 9, 2011
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA) Feedback Forums to Date
Preferred data views during an event by state and local jurisdictions responding to Post 3 as of February 9, 2011
Online Public Health Situation Awareness (PHSA) Feedback Forums to Date
Training needs and IT infrastructure issues from Post 4 respondents as of January 11, 2011
HDs Readiness for SS MUse
Many State or Community Health Agencies are not
yet prepared to receive the new wave of EHR data
According to TFAH, ASTHO and BioSense Program redesign
ASTHO’s MUSe Readiness Survey, # of States and Territories Responding = 35
Core Processes and EHR Reqs for PH SS
Data Sources Data on emergency
department (ED) and urgent care (UC)
patient visits captured by health information
system and sent to a public health authority
defines the scope of this recommendation
Surveillance Goal Assessment of
community and population health for all
hazards defines the scope of this
recommendation
Message and Vocabulary Standards
Standards that support current and
continued PHSS improvements, while
maintaining consistency with those
standards required by the CMS EHR
Reimbursement Program define the scope
of this recommendation
ISDS MUse Workgroup: http://syndromic.org/projects/meaningful-use
Core Processes and EHR Reqs for PH SS:Consensus-Driven Development
ISDS MUse Workgroup informed
early iterations. Stakeholder input
validated, refined and better
contextualized the
recommendations.
41 stakeholders commented; ~ 20%
corporations or professional
organizations
4 EP or Hospital
9 Vendors
20 Public Health
2 Other
Core Processes and EHR Reqs for PH SS: 32 Recommended Elements
ISDS MUse Workgroup: http://syndromic.org/projects/meaningful-use
Core Processes and EHR Reqs for PH SS: 32 Recommended Elements
ISDS MUse Workgroup: http://syndromic.org/projects/meaningful-use
Core Processes and EHR Reqs for PH SS: 32 Recommended Elements
ISDS MUse Workgroup: http://syndromic.org/projects/meaningful-use
Acknowledgements
US CDC James Buehler*, Samuel
Groseclose*, Laura Conn*, Seth Foldy*, Nedra Garrett*
RTI International Barbara Massoudi*, Lucia Rojas-
Smith, S. Cornelia Kaydos-Daniels, Annette Casoglos, Rita Sembajwe, Dean Jackman, Ross Loomis, Alan O'Connor, Taya McMillan, Amanda Flynn, Tonya Farris, Alison Banger, Robert Furberg
Epidemico John Brownstein*, Clark Freifeld,
Deanna Aho, Nabarun Dasgupta, Susan Aman, Katelynn O'Brien
TEP Members
David Buckeridge*, Julia Gunn,
Jim Kirkwood, Denise Love, Judy
Murphy, Marc Paladini, Tom
Safranek, Lisa Ferland, Richard
Hopkins, Walter Suarez
ISDS
Charlie Ishikawa*, Anne Gifford,
Rachel Viola, Emily Cain
* Co-authors
Thank You!
BioSense Redesignhttp://biosenseredesign.org
biosense.redesign2010 AT gmail DOT com
ISDS MUse Workgrouphttp://syndromic.org/projects/meaningful-use
Any views or opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC, HHS, or any other entity of the United States
government. Furthermore, the use of any product names, trade names, images, or commercial sources is for identification purposes only,
and does not imply endorsement or government sanction by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.