Effectiveness of the staff
・ They have done a good job to reestablish credibility
・ They have been doing a good job
・ Responsive, feedback right away
・ I want to give credit to the OHCS. I think they have almost an impossible task and that they are trying. They are making an effort to be good stewards
・ My contact has been great.
・ I think they’ve gotten a lot better.
・ We found the UDOH staff to be very helpful and available, knowledgeable to work with us. They were very helpful.
・ We would have liked to have the data use committee review go more quickly and the process for a surveillance use instead of a research use. We’re going to have to work with them on that.
Ease of use of the data
・ It was very easy.
・ Because I have experience with Medicare data, it was very straight forward. There was good documentation for the variables that we requested
・ Nothing easy about it.
・ There’s a long learning curve … balance between teaching someone to use the data and putting it somewhere
・ It would be awesome to have a really good code book.
・ Before we got any data, we had to go through what was available variables, some of them weren’t clear for what the variables were for, we had to figure out what we needed
・ If there was a dashboard for basic queries, that would be very useful.
・ I think that the CRG tool that they developed would be better to promote that better … like a web-based version would be good
Security of the data
・ We’re looking at things in aggregate, so there is no identifiable data
・ UDOH said that if there was data with too few of people, then they had to suppress that data before sending.
・ We had to go through the IRB process and the data use committee to get permission for the identifiers.
・ It met our standards of security protocols, so that is a good thing.