This page and child pages are restricted to APHL (+partner?, +policy WG?, +other?) team members working on the policy engagement project. These pages are not visible to PHA/Ls.

APHL-only (internal) pages

Policy Engagement Project Overview

The policy engagement space is a place for collaboration and engagement with the new policy engagement project. This project is intended to increase the visibility of APHL in the policy analysis space, educate PHAs and PHLs about potential federal policies, published policy, and other potential feedback opportunities, as well as provide educational materials to support use of APHL’s comments to springboard organizational or personal comment submissions. APHL will use this space to engage with and coordinate with partners such as CSTE and JPIT 2.0 and others. Brooke’s notes on what to put here from email… .

Policy Engagement Project Goal:

At the highest level, the intent of this project is to increase the impact and visibility of public health (including intermediaries, STLTs PHA/Ls) in the eyes of federal policymakers to better align federal policy with public health’s needs.

Policy-Interested Parties

APHL informatics team and leadership, potentially others STLTs PHAs staff and agency leaders STLTs PHLs staff and laboratory directors Federal partners such as CSTE, ASTHO, and others Federal public health partners at CDC Potentially others, including members of JPHIT2.0 Policy Engagement Team contact information and access (link, once those are determined)

Policy Engagement Team Work

Overview/steps of work the team performs Detailed procedures for performing that work

Internal Team Page Navigation

Whatever we determine below goes here…

? addl ….

?

Conceptual flow with approvals and external (to team and partners) interactions highlighted – open in a new tab to view detail at a readable magnification.

Image Added

...

Qs:

TBD is access needs - who? will there be different levels of access needed?

• Keep it as simple as possible - access groups weren’t as straightforward as expected (in eCR), so broad groups with simple permissions is better than complex permissioning unless you want to get into page-level permissions (don’t).

...

• (my suggestion from eCR experience is to keep it simple)

• Brooke Beaulieu Need this to work with Deaw to develop groups even if only test accts

• Brooke Beaulieu What partners, policy WG, CSTE, other partners should have access here? Or is it only the policy contractor and APHL email addresses?

TBD is how/who participates in the two approval workflows

...

For all visitors - what else is needed here?

...

Conceptual flow with approvals and external (to team and partners) interactions highlighted – open in a new tab to view detail at a readable magnification.

Note: It won’t stay unless others find it useful (please comment or let crystal know if you want it to stay and where)

...

• Brooke Beaulieu I need this information to determine workflows

Brooke Beaulieu I have specific questions in the comments about use of these macros/which you prefer

• A more general question is that I’m operating under the assumption that APHL seems to generally be a fan of using labels and uses them extensively in example documentation, so I’ve made the assumption I should use them as much as possible and in the same ways.

• However, I find them clunky, so defer to you on if you want child pages or tags in macros

• Either an internal tag or child page list will go up above in the table - await your plans before I move any of these lists (whichever you prefer +/- page attachments)

“Internal” tagged pages list:

...

List of attachments to this page with ‘internal’ and project tag tags: