Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplan And Tools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alliance reviews SAPHE 2.0 workplan, MAVEN coverage concerns and proposals for communications and case-management tools
Summary
The coalition reviewed SAPHE 2.0 reporting requirements, raised concerns about MAVEN access during municipal cyberattacks, discussed a JGPR communications contract and evaluated My Junna case-management software for tracking staff time; members asked staff to explore options and return with comparisons.
Members of the Northern Bristol County Public Health Alliance reviewed workplan highlights tied to SAPHE 2.0 reporting, raised system-access concerns for MAVEN during cyber incidents, and considered investments in communications and case-management tools.
Erika Syokau reviewed two upcoming SAPHE 2.0 surveys (workforce and performance standards) and outlined performance standard priorities including disease control, inspection consistency, and staff capacity-building. Sheri Miller Bedau raised questions about MAVEN access during municipal cyberattacks and sought guidance on state support when local MAVEN users are taken offline; Melissa Silverman said clearer state guidance would be beneficial.
The group also reviewed a proposal from JGPR Academy for external public-relations support and training, which included options for crisis communication, social-media training and PIO development at price points that varied by scope. Members were asked to review slides and come prepared to decide at the February coalition meeting; Anne Marie Fleming voiced concern about contracting processes, and the group agreed to revisit the proposal.
Staff presented My Junna, a HIPAA-compliant case-management platform that would track staff time and activities; pricing examples included a $299 setup fee and monthly user fees (example: $99 first user, $69 additional). Anne Marie agreed that time tracking is a challenge and Sheri requested staff compare alternate platforms before the next discussion.
No formal procurement decisions were made; staff were directed to gather comparative data and return with cost and implementation details for review.
