From JanD@co.island.wa.us Mon Nov 17 09:52:54 1997 Received: from mx5.u.washington.edu (mx5.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.6]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP id JAA36930 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:53 -0800 Received: from island-server.co.island.wa.us (ic.co.island.wa.us [198.239.93.55]) by mx5.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.09) with ESMTP id JAA13501 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:49 -0800 Received: by ic.co.island.wa.us with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:36 -0800 Message-ID: <918545B1261ED111BDB5006097A65C4D0D04A9@ic.co.island.wa.us> From: Jan Dahl To: ph-assess@u.washington.edu Subject: RE: Analytic Standards Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:34 -0800 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thanks Katryne for the information. Would it be possible to put drafts on the list at some point so we all can review & provide input? Jan Dahl > ---------- > From: Lukens-Bull, Katryne A.[SMTP:kal0303@hub.doh.wa.gov] > Reply To: ph-assess@u.washington.edu > Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 2:42 PM > To: Washington public health assessment coordinators > Subject: Analytic Standards > > <> > Hello to everyone, there has not been much discussion since I have > been > out of town so I hope this system is still working. Here is something > I > wanted you all to know about: > > ANALYTIC STANDARDS: > I met with Paul Stehr-Green's group last week on analytic standards > and > wanted to let everyone know who is representing you on the group. > Mark > Sarafin (and Diane Gordon) from Snohomish, David Solet and Jim Kreiger > > from Seattle-King County, Torney Smith and Rebecca Bohorques from > Spokane > County, Nancy Chambert from SW Washington. The following is an > excerpt > from an e-mail from Paul which outlines our tasks and timeline and > when > we will be getting in-put into the standards. let me know if you have > > any questions. We also divided up into groups to work on specific > issues > and the list of who signed up for what is attached. It is in excel > so > let me know if it does not go through or if you need a copy faxed - > thanks > > ********************************Paul's description of the > process/scope************************************ > > "The charge to this workgroup is to develop an initial set of basic > analytic standards to help ensure a consistent message in the data > products and reports which DOH issues and to effect more efficient use > of > the Department's resources in preparing these reports/products. As > such, > these analytic standards will serve as a minimal starting point for > all > DOH products/reports; however, the individual analysts must remain > free > to build on these basic analytic approaches and, when necessary, > deviate > from them (with justification and explanation). These standards will > NOT > be binding on LHJs and other external constituents, but it is hoped > that, > through their participation in this process and over the course of > time, > these standards will come to be used more widely--again, to facilitate > > comparison across jurisdictional boundaries, to communicate a more > consistent "public health" message, and to more efficiently use our > analytic resources at all levels of the public health system. > > The specific product I envision coming out of this process will be a > booklet with 2-3 page sections which cover specific topics (e.g., > definitions, statistical methods) and contained in a loose-leaf binder > > which can be updated periodically/as needed (i.e., reflective of a > dynamic process wherein we're regularly evaluating what's working, > what's > not, and what needs to be added/deleted/changed ). Ideally, the > format > should be reasonably consistent from section to section. As for the > format of these sections, my thoughts are that they should cover the > following aspects: > > 1) describe/define the topic area (i.e., WHAT is being covered) > 2) discuss issues/problems (i.e., WHY we're addressing this topic in > the > standards) > 3) specify the "standard" being recommended (i.e., HOW we propose to > deal > with this issue) > 4) explain the rationale for the proposed standard (i.e., WHY we think > > this is the best approach to take > 5) cite supporting literature > > Thanks to Mary, I've attached a summary of the work assignments for > which > you all "volunteered", as well as locating information; let me know if > > we've misinterpreted your intentions. I'm sure each group will find > its > own work path, but I'd suggest you at least consider incorporation the > > following steps: > > 1) define your topic and the scope you will try to address > 2) identify/consult existing standards (e.g., HWS, HP2000, PHIP I, > etc.) > 3) evaluate/discuss relevant issues (i.e., methodological robustness, > available expertise, data availability, consistency with national > standards, etc.) > 4) adapt existing standard/write new standard > > Finally, here's the timeline to which we agreed to commit: > > By 1/9/98===>1st draft of proposed standards submitted to PS-G and > other > team members; team members should also solicit comments from their > respective constituencies, but are responsible for summarizing these > comments; summary comments should be returned to originating author > (and > shared with other team members) as quickly as practicable. > > Week of 1/19-23/98===>workgroup reconvenes to consider suggested > changes > to all draft standards. > > By 2/6/98===> 2nd (revised) draft of proposed standards submitted to > PS-G > and other team members; team members should also solicit comments from > > their respective constituencies, but are responsible for summarizing > these comments; summary comments should be returned to originating > author > (and shared with other team members) as quickly as practicable. > > Week of 2/16-20/98===>workgroup reconvenes to consider suggested > changes > to all revised standards (IF NECESSARY). > > By 2/27/98===>"final" revised standards sent to PS-G for compilation > and > distribution to internal/external stakeholders for their formal review > > and comment; comments should be directed to PS-G. > > By 3/31/98===>all formal comments are due. > > By 4/3/98===>PS-G will share comments with authors. > > By 4/17/98===>FINAL draft of revised standards submitted to PS-G and > other team members; team members should also solicit comments from > their > respective constituencies, but are responsible for summarizing these > comments; summary comments should be returned to originating author > (and > shared with other team members) as quickly as practicable. > > Week of 4/20-24/98===>workgroup reconvenes to consider suggested > changes > to all FINAL draft standards (IF NECESSARY). > > By 5/1/98===> final revisions made by authors; compilation of all > FINAL > standards; distribution to internal/external stakeholders through team > > members and other mechanisms. > > ***********************************************end of Paul's > E-Mail******************************************** > > > > > > Katryne Lukens Bull, MPH, CHES > Washington State Department of Health > Office of Planning > 1112 SE Quince St. > PO Box 47890 > Olympia, Wa 98504-7890 > Phone: (360) 664-9381 > Fax: (360) 586-7424 > Pager: (360) 971-0586 > kal0303 @hub.doh.wa.gov > > .