CDC: State interoperability improved, but better data exchange needed
Since 2007, states have improved interoperability, integration and data exchange functionality as resources have allowed; however, the need to exchange information with external partners is escalating, according to an article in the Oct. 21 edition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”
“For continued progress in supporting national and state-level electronic data exchange priorities, continued collaboration among states combined with financial support by funding agencies must be public health priorities,” wrote Kathryn Turner, PhD, from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and Lisa Ferland, MPH, from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists in Atlanta.
In 2007, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) conducted an assessment to evaluate states’ electronic disease surveillance capacity and conducted a follow-up assessment in 2010 to evaluate the operational status and progress of interoperability.
The 2010 report summarized that a 17.5 percent increase was noted from 40 states in 2007 to 47 states in 2010 with fully operational general communicable disease (GSD) electronic surveillance systems as well as a 211.5 percent increase from 13 to 39 states in the number of systems that were interoperable. The report also noted a 22.4 percent increase from 23 to 34 states in the number of integrated systems and a 20 percent increase to 42 states with the capacity to receive electronic laboratory reports (ELRs).
“To meet national goals for health information exchange to improve population health, variation in disease surveillance systems should decrease, and functionality should increase,” wrote Turner and Ferland.
Two important challenges to electronic surveillance system implementation identified by states were funding shortages and lack of infrastructure support. Fifty-eight percent of states responding to an ad hoc CSTE workgroup questionnaire reported receiving no funding from state sources to maintain or develop their electronic surveillance systems.
“By looking to states with strong ELR capacity, best practices and strategies for achieving success might be learned that could lead to similar success in states with less-developed capacity,” concluded the authors. “CSTE will continue to assist states in developing and using electronic disease surveillance systems and evaluating the results of those efforts.”
“For continued progress in supporting national and state-level electronic data exchange priorities, continued collaboration among states combined with financial support by funding agencies must be public health priorities,” wrote Kathryn Turner, PhD, from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and Lisa Ferland, MPH, from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists in Atlanta.
In 2007, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) conducted an assessment to evaluate states’ electronic disease surveillance capacity and conducted a follow-up assessment in 2010 to evaluate the operational status and progress of interoperability.
The 2010 report summarized that a 17.5 percent increase was noted from 40 states in 2007 to 47 states in 2010 with fully operational general communicable disease (GSD) electronic surveillance systems as well as a 211.5 percent increase from 13 to 39 states in the number of systems that were interoperable. The report also noted a 22.4 percent increase from 23 to 34 states in the number of integrated systems and a 20 percent increase to 42 states with the capacity to receive electronic laboratory reports (ELRs).
“To meet national goals for health information exchange to improve population health, variation in disease surveillance systems should decrease, and functionality should increase,” wrote Turner and Ferland.
Two important challenges to electronic surveillance system implementation identified by states were funding shortages and lack of infrastructure support. Fifty-eight percent of states responding to an ad hoc CSTE workgroup questionnaire reported receiving no funding from state sources to maintain or develop their electronic surveillance systems.
“By looking to states with strong ELR capacity, best practices and strategies for achieving success might be learned that could lead to similar success in states with less-developed capacity,” concluded the authors. “CSTE will continue to assist states in developing and using electronic disease surveillance systems and evaluating the results of those efforts.”