EPI-X, CDC HAN, and local HAN (or PCA equivalents)
All - after an internal thread with key stakeholders, I would like to raise the discussion regarding the three major alert and communication systems in play which penetrate CDC cooperative agreement jurisdictions. Oregon's long-term strategic goal is to have key officials interact with a single alerting interface which is PCA compliant and offers security features for provisional data. At present, we (Oregon) is interesting is ensuring there is an end-goal at the federal level to ensure this is the go-forward business architecture.
any thoughts, feedback from the field?
any thoughts, feedback from the field?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Beverly Elliott on -
I agree it would be wonderful to get information one time. However, how do we reconcile the functionality of Epi-X with our HAN? Would this be a system to system communication? Would like to hear more.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Cradock on -
To clarify, my 'concern' is much less about which system sends what information and when - that in and of itself is its own problem. Our technical concern is the identity and implementation efforts associated with having Epi-X, CDC HAN, and the local HAN all running alerting infrastructures.
They should all be designed to cascade per PHIN PCA requirements. Why does the CDC system need to go direct and jurisdictions keep up essentially three directories. Does CDC intend for its own alerting system to be PHIN compliant, it becomes duplicative and costly. Our staff in OR cannot keep interfacing with three stand alone alerting systems.
© 2010 Created by phConnect Admin
