Statewide System of Electronic Notifiable Disease Reporting From Clinical Laboratories: Comparing Automated Reporting With Conventional Methods | Infectious Diseases | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.173.234.169. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Institute of Medicine.  Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United StatesLederberg J, Shope RE, Oaks SC Jr, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
2.
Chorba TL, Berkelman RL, Safford SK, Gibbs NP, Hull HF. Mandatory reporting of infectious diseases by clinicians.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1990;39(RR-9):1-17.Google Scholar
3.
Thacker SB, Berkelman RL, Stroup DF. The science of public health surveillance.  J Public Health Policy.1989;10:187-203.Google Scholar
4.
Graitcer PL, Burton AH. The Epidemiologic Surveillance Project: a computer-based system for disease surveillance.  Am J Prev Med.1987;3:123-127.Google Scholar
5.
Thacker SB, Berkelman RL. Public health surveillance in the United States.  Epidemiol Rev.1988;10:164-190.Google Scholar
6.
Thacker SB, Choi K, Brachman PS. The surveillance of infectious diseases.  JAMA.1983;249:1181-1185.Google Scholar
7.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.  Chemical and Biological Terrorism: Research and Development to Improve Civilian Medical ResponseWashington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
8.
Godes JR, Hall WN, Dean AG, Morse CD. Laboratory-based disease surveillance: a survey of state laboratory directors.  Minn Med.1982;65:762-764.Google Scholar
9.
State of Hawaii Department of Health.  Cooperative Agreement No. U50/CCU912395-01. August 31, 1995.
10.
Rushworth RL, Bell SM, Rubin GL, Hunter RM, Ferson MJ. Improving surveillance of infectious diseases in New South Wales.  Med J Aust.1991;154:828-831.Google Scholar
11.
Schramm MM, Vogt RL, Mamolen M. The surveillance of communicable disease in Vermont: who reports?  Public Health Rep.1991;106:95-97.Google Scholar
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st CenturyAtlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1998.
13.
The White House.  Presidential Decision Directive NSTC-7. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/html/pdd7.html. Accessed October 11, 1999.
14.
State of Hawaii Department of Health.  Cooperative Agreement No. U50/CCU912395-03. May 20, 1998.
15.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Electronic reporting of laboratory data for public health: meeting report and recommendations, November 23, 1997. Available at: http://www.phppo.cdc.gov. Accessed October 12, 1999.
16.
Stroup DF. Special analytic issues. In: Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, eds. Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1994:143-145.
17.
McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Dexter P, Takesue BY, Dwyer DM. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources.  Ann Intern Med.1997;127(8 pt 2):675-682.Google Scholar
18.
Health Level Seven.  Available at: http://www.mcis.duke.edu/standards/HL7/hl7.htmAccessed October 11, 1999.
19.
 Laboratory observation identifier names and codes Available at: http://www.mcis.duke.edu/standards/HL7/termcode/loinclab/loinc.html. Accessed March 11, 1999.
20.
 Systemized nomenclature for medicine Available at: http://snomed.org/. Accessed March 11, 1999.
21.
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.  TABLE 2.—Reporting Requirements for Health Care Providers and Laboratories Diseases and Conditions Under National Surveillance. Available at: http://www.cste.org/table202B.html. Accessed March 10, 1999.
22.
National Science and Technology Council.  Infectious Disease: A Global Health ThreatWashington, DC: National Science and Technology Council; 1995.
23.
US General Accounting Office.  Emerging Infectious Diseases: Consensus on Needed Laboratory Capacity Could Strengthen SurveillanceWashington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 1999. GAO/HEHS-99-26.
Original Contribution
November 17, 1999

Statewide System of Electronic Notifiable Disease Reporting From Clinical Laboratories: Comparing Automated Reporting With Conventional Methods

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: State of Hawaii Department of Health, Honolulu (Dr Effler and Mss Ching-Lee, Bogard, Ieong, and Nekomoto); and the Office of Surveillance, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Jernigan).

JAMA. 1999;282(19):1845-1850. doi:10.1001/jama.282.19.1845
Abstract

Context Notifiable disease surveillance is essential to rapidly identify and respond to outbreaks so that further illness can be prevented. Automating reports from clinical laboratories has been proposed to reduce underreporting and delays.

Objective To compare the timeliness and completeness of a prototypal electronic reporting system with that of conventional laboratory reporting.

Design Laboratory-based reports for 5 conditions received at a state health department between July 1 and December 31, 1998, were reviewed. Completeness of coverage for each reporting system was estimated using capture-recapture methods.

Setting Three statewide private clinical laboratories in Hawaii.

Main Outcome Measures The number and date of reports received, by reporting system, laboratory, and pathogen; completeness of data fields.

Results A total of 357 unique reports of illness were identified; 201 (56%) were received solely through the automated electronic system, 32 (9%) through the conventional system only, and 124 (35%) through both. Thus, electronic reporting resulted in a 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.6) increase in reports. Electronic reports arrived an average of 3.8 (95% CI, 2.6-5.0) days earlier than conventional reports. Of 21 data fields common to paper and electronic formats, electronic reports were significantly more likely to be complete for 12 and for 1 field with the conventional system. The estimated completeness of coverage for electronic reporting was 80% (95% CI, 77%-82%) compared with 38% (95% CI, 37%-39%) for the conventional system.

Conclusions In this evaluation, electronic reporting more than doubled the total number of laboratory-based reports received. On average, the electronic reports were more timely and more complete, suggesting that electronic reporting may ultimately facilitate more rapid and comprehensive institution of disease control measures.

×