Injury Surveillance Workgroup Conference Call (Workgroup 1, Meeting #4)

September 27, 2012

Call Attendees:

  • Organizers/administrators:
  • Marguerite Carroll (Falmouth Institute, Project Manager)
  • Basla Andolsun (Falmouth Institute, Curriculum Development)
  • Nancy Bill (IHS, co-lead of project)
  • Holly Billie (Injury Prevention Specialist, CDC, co-lead of project)
  • Workgroup members:
  • Don Williams (Tucson Area Injury Prevention Coordinator)
  • Celeste Davis (Director, Division of Environmental Health Services / Emergency Management Coordinator)

Topics Covered:

  1. Review of materials in CDC Objective 2 continued
  2. Page 25
  3. Bear in mind that there is an exercise in the L2 course.
  4. Great source of data.
  5. If decide to use, update it with newer functions like:
  6. Mapping by countries.
  7. New restrictions on lower numbers (won’t even show ones w/lower numbers).
  8. Mention that it exists, what it is, what some of updates are, but don’t get too into it. No exercise.
  9. Page 35
  10. Contains good information.
  11. Reword for I.C.
  12. May have to change language at bottom, depending on what comes after it.
  13. Page 27
  14. Sum up information here in a few paragraphs.
  15. Mention WISQARS tutorial that will be developed by CDC/Falmouth here.
  16. Page 28-30
  17. Sum up in one or two paragraphs and leave out slide details.
  18. Page 31
  19. Needs update. What is available has to be updated.
  20. Table 3 is for U.S. population—need one for AI/AN 2010 together with US/all races population for comparison.
  1. Page 31, 4.2
  2. Needs update with more current figures.
  3. Page 34
  4. Needs update.
  5. Needs AI/AN comparison.
  6. Delete table 5.
  7. Page 35
  8. Remove information on Nicaragua, El Salvador.
  9. Suicide information for AI/AN. Update and put AI/AN figures in for Fig. 3
  10. Q: Can we get that data? What sources would you compare?
  11. A: IHS sources. Localized.
  12. Q: How important is concept of comparing frequencies between data sources to local data systems? Would there even be enough to compare?
  13. Statement about misclassification of racial data is important. This has been noted by other groups as well.
  14. This section introduces considerations. Introduce it briefly and cover in more detail in another section. This could be first place it is discussed.
  15. Page 36
  16. Mortality data – You can select for AI/AN population, but you can NOT for morbidity data. Can still use morbidity data to explain what is happening in state/country.
  17. This is important to include (!).
  18. Page 37
  19. Table 6 not needed.
  20. Summary – remove last bullet point.
  21. Going back to page 22—Need to give contact information for epicenters around the country. This is important; need information for access to nearest epicenter.
  1. Objective 3
  2. Page 4
  3. Learning objectives – How likely is it that a coalition will be developed to do surveillance? Usually falls on one person or two people.
  4. Other workgroups may have decided to include it, but mention Real vs. Ideal situation.
  5. It is discussed a lot in L1 and L2. All general information here has been covered in L1, but might be different here with ROLES.
  6. Example: Someone from health center who can provide information on HIPAA, guidelines that have been developed just for that facility.
  7. Include folks who have access to different data sources—EMS, Police department, etc. – That’s how this section could be different from L2.
  8. Don’t repeat a lot of L2; let’s just make it episurveillance.
  9. Pull out and focus on what folks need to know in terms of coalitions and episurveillance. First thing that comes to mind is ROLES.
  10. Page 5
  11. Roles would go under page 5.
  12. “Circumstances vary…” already covered in L2.
  13. Language needs to be changed a bit, but first paragraph is good.
  14. Second paragraph – re: involving authorities-- not sure about first sentence, but rest of paragraph is good.
  15. Switch “justice and security” to “tribal police departments / tribal court staff.”
  16. List examples after “health personnel” in parentheses (EMS, CHRs, tribal clinic staff).
  17. Page 6
  18. Cultural competency issue is big, as well as linguistic issues. “Cultural competency” and “linguistic competency” need to be included. Levels of knowledge important depending on setting (rural or urban).
  19. Discussion of cultural competency may not be as important in coalition setting, but is important when sharing information after you’ve analyzed data.
  20. Being culturally competent with gathering data is also important.
  21. Page 7
  22. A repeat slide from L2.
  23. These ARE the questions you want to ask. Applicable to someone who will be collecting data. Include in roles and trying to decide who to include in coalition.
  24. Page 8
  25. This could be a quick slide, part of appendix, or presented as a resource / reference in appendix (say, “Go to preventioninstitute.org,” or “If you need a refresher or don’t remember the details, go to appendix or preventioninstitute.org”). (Check link to make sure it’s current.)
  26. Page 9, Table 1
  27. Change word “intersectorial.”
  28. Totally different table would have to be developed with some of the same sector categories, but others would need to be changed. What Holly mentioned previously in parentheses (CHRs, etc.) would go here.
  29. Change “Sector” to “Partner” (ex: health) and “Participant” could either be “participant” or “players” (ex: local or HIS hospital, HIS or Tribal Clinic, Paramedics/EMS, CHR)
  30. Change “security” to “Law Enforcement.”
  31. In title, change “Intersectorial” to “Injury Surveillance.”
  32. Page 9, 1.1
  33. Covered in L1/L2 and previous slide.
  34. Suggest to review if necessary.
  1. Page 10
  2. Success Story: Find I.C. success story, e.g., obtaining grant with data and making impact on community.
  3. Nancy can give success story or contact to Marguerite. Send email to Nancy so she can reply directly.
  4. Page 11
  5. May apply locally, or by county or state, depending on surveillance system developed. Say “ local, county, state.”
  6. Brief example after each level.
  7. Local –I.P. Coalition
  8. County – I.P. Coalition
  9. State – Death review team or state trauma registry
  10. Remove “global” part.
  11. Page 12
  12. Data drives policy in I.C. (or at least for IHS). Politically this helps with leverage for budget negotiating.
  13. This information/idea belongs in section about benefits of surveillance systems and what you can do with it.
  14. Be aware of what’s going on socially, legally, and politically in a tribe when you’re doing surveillance.
  15. Page 13
  16. Alcohol in general in area of surveillance is about how you get information and how it’s coded and defined. That discussion is fitting, but not discussion of “strategies.”
  17. This idea doesn’t fit in the course, but how to find the information does.
  18. Page 14.
  19. Do not include.
  20. Coalitions and collaborations slides
  21. Do not need to be included.
  1. Last Comments
  2. All workgroups should go back over outline for their sections on a call before the whole group meets.
  3. Overview for all workgroup members of each group:
  4. Flow
  5. Content
  6. IS anything missing?
  7. Doublecheck with other workgroups to see if it’s covered elsewhere.
  1. Next Meeting
  2. TBA

To Do:

Nancy: Give success story or contact to Marguerite.

Marguerite:Create an outline and send to all.

All: Next meeting TBA (later in the fall)

Injury Surveillance Conference Call Summary (Workgroup 1, fourth meeting)

9/27/12