# data[].attributes.body
- combine systems but it was too expensive
- systems to put together for the HIV and STI but they have different systems.
CDC is requiring eHars for HIV, but it doesn't mean indiv states couldn't come up with something else but they have to send to eHars
- try HIV, Hep, STI in one system
- HIV and STI could be combined (easier option, more reasonable)
- get one national system to meet the same  requirements
- CDC is working on getting a system, and it seems NBS is one of them but there is no decision yet
SOLUTIONS:
use the same standards - national, local and state HD
- data is good enough for the state, it is good for national; but LHds don't know if that is good enough to include in the national data
- case definitions modified for syphilis, everyone struggle to capture the data, and some places are still struggling with that, but all that data is getting lost
- CDC made it clear re: HIV surv data, but in STI there are no std as it was in HIV; dont know what benchmark to meet.
- STI strategy being requested and that is why they have it. So this is a root cause of the

# data[].attributes.body
- Data may be lost because the transfer from legacy to other systems
- not really have a voice in the conversation
- bc of COVID there were lots of labs electronically and were told to stop the paper reporting, but didn't include the HIV or STD, so if paper reports are not produced, there is no access to that information.
- in a state 99% of labs already report electronically
- reporting in a NBS system was turned off
- there are some reports you can run, but access to run those reports was shut off for STI - staff not necessarily aware
-

# data[].attributes.body
- states need to come up with their own; measures are diferent for HIV, and need to meet a certain treshold to meet the CDC standard. STDs always run the data and have no measures; everyone struggling because of different points + measures, on timeliness. Some things are recommended for eval but it is not used the same way.
Sites need to come up with a plan for monitoring - baseline, run the data, set a treshhold, then set a goal.
For the HIV surv there are stds across all jurisdictions within a timeframe. Wish to have the same for STDs.
Thehre is a std eval report that is done annually in HIV, but there is nothing on the STI in terms of the stds for all. Requested the proj officer and they don't have any 9CDC), so they have worked with other sites to get an idea where the median could be, but with the outbreak there is specific criteria for hIV
CDC has provided specific criteria for HIV (SAS)
2 separate grants - so reporting is different; it appears to be org in the ssame center - it apears they don't comm with each other.- but there is a disconnect, not harmonization across the 2 centers
In another state the DIS falls under the STI grant, and there is so much info DIS gets that HIV needs, and there should be communication among the 2.
It also seems there is a goal to merge the divisions but not happening
eHears for HIV surveillance, and another system for HIV prevention, STD (surv + prevention) but operate separately
- supplemental funding re: data DIS workforce - about prevention/intervention activities performed by DIS; goal talk to talk to the + results and get the Partner Services to
it is not always simple to do it for the Partner index; how to name an index partner is complex. So CDC could provide SAS program for HIV
with info to add the data or do things in sections
For STD programs is different
- some guidance is available but could be too general.

# data[].attributes.headline
During the COVID-19 pandemic, our HD had a challenge keeping up and communicating CDC guidelines and things were rapidly changing.We initially sent emails linking the guidance or a variety of details and were told it was overwhelming amount of information.This problem was two-fold. 1 - We either received so many questions that we couldn't keep up with them and respond in a timely way. It was taking precious staffing time to fill gaps.2- There was so much information, changing so rapidly that led to inaction. For example, our email blasts went from a 90% open rate to a 30% open rate. People just weren't digesting the information we needed.

# data[].attributes.subject
During the COVID-19 pandemic, our HD had a challenge keeping up and communicating CDC guidelines and things were rapidly changing.We initially sent emails linking the guidance or a variety of details and were told it was overwhelming amount of information.This problem was two-fold. 1 - We either received so many questions that we couldn't keep up with them and respond in a timely way. It was taking precious staffing time to fill gaps.2- There was so much information, changing so rapidly that led to inaction. For example, our email blasts went from a 90% open rate to a 30% open rate. People just weren't digesting the information we needed.

# data[].attributes.headline
The primary risk was that we would not be able to get important info to the right people at the right time.

# data[].attributes.subject
The primary risk was that we would not be able to get important info to the right people at the right time.

# data[].attributes.headline
We used the following approach:1. Identify potential communication topics.  e.g. social distancing guidelines, vaccines updates, etc.2. We then parceled out which audience(s) would need communication on each topic.3. We determined a timeline for each topic.  e.g. social distancing updates occurred within 24-48 hours.  Whereas, vaccine updates could be bi-weekly.4. We determined which communication channels to use.  e.g. internal communication was most effective via Teams whereas Facebook was utilized by the public.

# data[].attributes.subject
We used the following approach:1. Identify potential communication topics.  e.g. social distancing guidelines, vaccines updates, etc.2. We then parceled out which audience(s) would need communication on each topic.3. We determined a timeline for each topic.  e.g. social distancing updates occurred within 24-48 hours.  Whereas, vaccine updates could be bi-weekly.4. We determined which communication channels to use.  e.g. internal communication was most effective via Teams whereas Facebook was utilized by the public.

# data[].attributes.headline
Our goal was to streamline the communication to the right people at the right time with the right amount of information.  Namely, strategic communications.We wanted to make sure the information was concise, targeted and via the right communication channels, which was often using teams for internal communication and facebook for external comms.

# data[].attributes.subject
Our goal was to streamline the communication to the right people at the right time with the right amount of information.  Namely, strategic communications.We wanted to make sure the information was concise, targeted and via the right communication channels, which was often using teams for internal communication and facebook for external comms.