|
|
Posted By Lauren Reeves,
Thursday, September 11, 2014
|
| This week's post is the third in our series of posts about Deadly Outbreaks , a book of outbreak mystery stories, written by Alexandra Levitt. The book is available for purchase at amazon.com . |
|
Epidemiologists who investigate disease clusters and epidemics typically work in close partnership with laboratory scientists who identify pathogens that cause outbreaks. In many cases, infectious disease mysteries are quickly solved once the causative agent is known, because public health experts know how a particular pathogen is transmitted and what can be done to interrupt its transmission. But what happens when an outbreak is caused by an unknown pathogen for which there are no diagnostic tests? Here is what happened in a real-life outbreak story recounted in Deadly Outbreaks, entitled Inspiration or Obsession:
In August of the Bicentennial year of 1976, several people died of a flu-like illness after attending an American Legion convention at an elegant Philadelphia hotel. Public health authorities suspected that the Legionnaires might be the first victims of the dreaded “Swine Flu,” caused by a new strain of influenza, identified eight months previously. However, the ensuring investigation ruled out Swine Flu and a range of other respiratory, foodborne, and waterborne diseases. Instead, the epidemiologic data suggested an airborne chemical or microbe inhaled by people who walked in front of the hotel or entered the hotel lobby. Otherwise, the investigative trail yielded no useful clues. Some said it was a Communist Plot or a terrorist attack. Others thought that the cause might never be known. |
|
|
| At the end of the summer, after three and a half weeks of field work, the CDC team assisting the Pennsylvania Department of Health returned home with the mystery unsolved. Public health officials had identified 221 cases of the illness, which came be known as Legionnaires Disease (LD); 34 people had died. Although the outbreak had stopped, with no additional cases identified after August 18, public worry—inflamed by the Swine Flu scare—continued unabated. CDC was criticized by politicians, journalists, and local health officials for its failure to find the cause of the outbreak, as well as its decision to vaccinate the U.S. population against a pandemic of Swine Flu—a catastrophe that never materialized. |
|
| Enter Joseph McDade, a dedicated young scientist who began as a bit player in the drama, helping to rule out an animal-borne disease called Q fever as the cause of LD. With that task accomplished, McDade turned back to his day job, which involved developing methods for the detection of epidemic typhus. For most of the fall, he was uninvolved in the LD investigation and oblivious to the ongoing turmoil at CDC—at least at first. His natural bent was to screen out all distractions and focus single-mindedly the scientific problem at hand. Nevertheless, from time to time—especially when he came up for air after completing a round of typhus experiments—he had little, niggling thoughts about some tiny rod-shaped bacteria he’d seen on a few of his Q fever slides. At the time, he had dismissed the rods as insignificant contaminants. But now he was not so sure. |
|
| As recorded in Deadly Outbreaks [page 104], McDade thought of the rods as a “hook” on which his thoughts were snagged: |
McDade felt more and more compelled do something, anything! …He had to go back and look at those rods once again. He decided to make himself stop what he was doing (a whole other set of typhus experiments) and re-focus [on the mystery disease]. He knew there was little chance that he would find anything that his colleagues had missed, but he was more and more bothered by the problem, almost to the point of obsession. Instead of worrying himself to death, he decided, he would “clarify the issue” one more time and then forget about it. |
|
| Alone in the laboratory over the Christmas holiday—nearly five months after the first LD cases appeared—McDade retrieved the Philadelphia specimens from deep-freeze and set out to figure out what had really happened… |
Tags:
Deadly Outbreaks
infectious disease
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Lauren Reeves,
Friday, August 29, 2014
|
This week’s post is the second in our series of posts about Deadly Outbreaks, a book of real-life outbreak mystery stories. You can purchase a copy of Deadly Outbreaks by author Alexandra Levitt at amazon.com.
Epidemiologists who investigate outbreaks often use their findings not only to control disease but also to prevent future outbreaks once the immediate emergency is over. For example, in the aftermath of an outbreak that occurred at a Toronto hospital during the 1980s (described in Chapter 3 of Deadly Outbreaks), the investigators recommended extensive changes in how hospitals dispense drugs and how they use mortality data to monitor and improve hospital care. Although public health experts had been advocating these improvements for some time, the experience at the Toronto hospital—which involved drug overdoses and a long lag before a problem was recognized—demonstrated their importance in a dramatic and unequivocal way.
Here is what happened in the outbreak story entitled Sorrow and Statistics:
In 1981, thirty-four babies at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto died from apparent overdoses of the heart medication digoxin. Although a judge dismissed murder charges against a nurse who had been on duty during some (but not all) of the deaths, the police continued to claim that she was guilty, while the hospital’s doctors insisted the babies had died of natural causes.
With the hospital under a cloud of suspicion, the hospital authorities called in outside help, in the form of an Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) officer from CDC. On his arrival, officials from the Ontario Ministry of Health introduced the EIS officer —James Buehler—to two experienced Canadian colleagues who served as members of his investigative team. |
|
|
|
| Buehler understood from the start that there was uncertainty about what they might be able to accomplish. As recorded in Chapter 3 of Deadly Outbreaks [page 63]: |
“What could the medical detectives do that the…doctors and police had not already done? The doctors had focused on the details of each baby’s illness, finding a natural reason for each death. The police, on the other hand, had focused on a particular suspect, seeking legal evidence to build a case against her. The epidemiologists viewed the evidence from a different angle. Unlike the police or the doctors, they looked at all of the deaths at once, as part of a single mission, trying to figure out what all the cases had in common—somewhat like an FBI analyst examining deaths linked to a single serial killer. However, unlike the police or FBI, they were not concerned with legal issues or with questions about human guilt and motivation, and unlike the hospital staff, they bore no personal responsibility for the babies’ welfare. They did not interview the nurses or meeting with the victims’ parents. Thus, they were emotionally removed from the tiny victims and perhaps better able to analyze the data in a dispassionate way, using graphs and statistics—“people with the tears wiped away” as the EIS saying goes. Another way to say it is that they ignored the horror behind the numbers and plunged on, wherever the data would take them.”
|
| James Buehler and his team, working as unobtrusively as possible at the troubled hospital, used epidemiologic data to confirm that a significant rise in the infant death rate had actually occurred on the hospital’s cardiology ward. Then they proceeded to collect hypotheses and rule them out, one by one, until only one was left…. |
Tags:
Deadly Outbreaks
infectious disease
outbreak
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Lauren Reeves,
Thursday, August 21, 2014
|
CSTE’s role as an advocate for state and local epidemiologists comes into focus during outbreaks and public health emergencies. CSTE is currently working with our members, CDC, and our public health partners to coordinate communication and facilitate information sharing about Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). CSTE and CDC have collaborated from the beginning on regular EVD briefing calls with State Epidemiologists and senior public health officials.
During situations like this EVD response, an enormous amount of information is disseminated very quickly. The CSTE National Office is a source for streamlined, accurate, and directed information for applied epidemiologists. CSTE is helping our members involved with emergency preparedness, infectious disease, and EVD to share best practices and experiences, ask questions, and conduct an open dialogue with their colleagues.
This week, CSTE launched a members-only webpage for up-to-date information, resources, and links about EVD. To access the page, members can log into the CSTE website with their logins and passwords. Links to help members who have forgotten their login email or password are available on the login screen. The EVD page gives CSTE members access to a discussion board forum, where members can contribute and share guidance and protocols, quarantine orders, and other documents from their jurisdictions. The forum also allows members to post questions and comments to facilitate conversation about managing the EVD crisis. CSTE has also compiled an after-hours phone list so jurisdictions and public health partners can easily access emergency contact information for state and local agencies. |
|
|
| CSTE and its partners are continuously working with CDC to discuss state and local jurisdictions’ needs to make sure their concerns are advocated for adequately. CSTE participates in national briefing calls as well as calls that focus on epidemiology to be more specific to the issues and concerns important to epidemiologists. |
|
| In addition, three CDC/CSTE Applied Epidemiology Fellows have been deployed to the CDC Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to augment EOC staffing during its activation. The Fellows are assisting with the data management team. Aiden Varan, a fellow placed in infectious disease in a joint assignment with San Diego County and the San Diego quarantine station, arrived at CDC to assist in early August. Hanna Oltean, a fellow working in infectious disease at the Washington State Department of Health, and Cara Bergo, a fellow placed at the Louisiana Department of Health working in maternal and child health, recently joined Aiden at the EOC. Additional fellows may be called to assist as the outbreak response continues. |
|
| CSTE and CDC have set up email accounts for specific questions related to each organization’s EVD preparedness and response activities. Contact the CSTE National Office at commandcenter@cste.org with EVD-related questions so that CSTE can focus and direct questions appropriately. State and local senior health officials who need assistance with EVD-related issues can contact CDC’s Incident Management System State Coordination Task Force EOC desk directly at eocsctfeocdesk@cdc.gov. |
|
| For more information, visit CSTE’s EVD webpage or CDC’s Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever webpage, which has the most up-to-date information from CDC. |
|
| To join and access CSTE’s members-only page, visit CSTE’s membership page. |
| |
Tags:
infectious disease
outbreak
staff spotlight
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Lauren Reeves,
Thursday, August 14, 2014
|
Untitled Document
Despite advances in healthcare, infectious microbes continue to be formidable adversaries to scientists and doctors. Deadly Outbreaks—a book of real-life outbreak mystery stories—recounts the scientific adventures of a special group of intrepid individuals who investigate disease outbreaks and figure out how to stop them.
Several upcoming blog posts will describe stories from Deadly Outbreaks, written by Alexandra Levitt. (You may recognize some of these outbreak or their causes, or you may know some of the epidemiologists. Read on to find out….) For example, this week’s post concerns an outbreak of a dangerous drug-resistant disease with the potential for international spread. Like today’s Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the dangers posed by this outbreak underscore the critical importance of maintaining local public health systems that do the day-to-day work of investigating outbreaks and stopping them at their source. We rarely know in advance which small outbreak or disease cluster will turn out to be something truly dangerous and devastating. |
|
| Here is what happens in the outbreak story entitled The McConnon Strain: |
|
| Epidemiologists sometimes face difficult choices, with moral, political, and financial repercussions that must be weighed against risks to human health. In 1983, for example, two officials, Patrick McConnon (from the United States) and Roland Sutter (from Switzerland), agonized about whether to delay the long-awaited repatriation of 20,000 Cambodian refugees, fearing that some might carry a rare, multidrug-resistant form of malaria. The U.S. Government planned to fly the refugees from Thailand, where they lived in border camps, to the Philippines (where they would be processed for entry into the United States). Stopping the flight would prolong the misery of hundreds of desperate families eager to resettle and start new lives. On the other hand, introducing an untreatable form of malaria into a mosquito-infested part of the Philippines could bring illness or death to thousands or even millions of people. As recorded in Deadly Outbreaks (page 38): |
|
People stranded in refugee camps, displaced, impoverished, and malnourished, are at special risk for infectious diseases such as malaria, measles, and cholera that flourish in crowded and unsanitary living conditions. When infected refugees are moved to new holding sites, repatriated, or resettled in new countries, they can bring these diseases with them. As a result, public health officials like McConnon have overlapping and sometimes conflicting aims: to safeguard the health and welfare not only of the refugees themselves, but also of the people in countries that host refugee camps or accept refugees as permanent residents.
The spread of smallpox after the 1971 Pakistani civil war illustrates what can happen when a pathogen incubated in a refugee camp infects the wider population. Smallpox was carried to the newly established nation of Bangladesh by Bengali refugees returning home from India. According to public health lore, the presence of smallpox in the camps was detected by an epidemiologist in Atlanta, sitting in his living room watching TV, who noticed a man with a suspicious rash in a newsreel about a camp near Calcutta... The epidemiologist called the director of CDC, who called the director of the WHO Smallpox Vaccination Program, who called the Indian Ministry of Health. But it was already too late. Thousands of Bengalis had already left the camp, leading to widespread outbreaks in Bangladesh and making the last Asian country to eliminate smallpox.
|
|
| McConnon was well aware of this history, because he had worked in Bangladesh in 1975, the final year of the smallpox eradication effort in Asia. He tried to convince an official at the U.S. State Department that it was dangerous to send refugees to the Philippines before screening them for this unusual strain of drug-resistant malaria. But the State Department official was skeptical and demanded to see some evidence. |
| With few resources and little time, McConnon and Sutter conducted a small-scale epidemiologic study in the border camp. If they could figure out which activities (e.g., farming, fishing, water collection) exposed people to malaria, they might delay the departure of exposed refugees while allowing unexposed refugees to proceed to the Philippines. As part of the study, they plotted the location of each malaria case on a map of the refugee camp, hoping to see a pattern. However, the data did not support any of their hypotheses. There was no association between the malaria cases and growing crops or working near the forest, swamp, chicken coops, or garbage dump. In fact, the distribution of malaria cases seemed entirely random, except for one thing: nearly all the cases involved males between the ages of 13 and 35. |
|
| This did not make sense! The mosquitoes that carry malaria do not distinguish between women and men or between the young and the old. McConnon and Sutter remained frustrated and puzzled—until they stumbled on an explanation during a conversation in a local bar when an aid worker mentioned a border-camp activity they had not tested for… |
|
| |
| Stephen Ostroff, MD, former deputy director of CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases and former director of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Epidemiology, said that “anyone with even a passing interest in disease investigation will find Deadly Outbreaks to be a great read. So too will all practitioners of public health, from students contemplating a career in epidemiology to the most seasoned veteran.” You can purchase a copy of Deadly Outbreaks by author Alexandra Levitt at amazon.com. |
 |
| |
Tags:
deadly outbreaks
infectious disease
malaria
outbreak
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Alfred DeMaria,
Thursday, July 3, 2014
|
| The CSTE Annual Conference was stimulating and thought provoking—there were many excellent examples of “epidemiology in action.” Attendees shared ideas and experiences, and created a real “community of practice.” |
|
| Now that we’re back from Nashville, I’m looking ahead to 2014–2015. Issues raised at the annual conference reinforced ideas I had about priorities for this coming year: |
- Informatics capacity continues to be a struggle, but we’re making progress. CSTE’s advocacy efforts educate policy makers to increase awareness and encourage funding. CSTE’s workforce development initiatives improve existing and new epidemiologists’ competencies in informatics skills. These continued efforts are important to sustain progress in this area.
- Developments in laboratory technology are just beginning to have a huge impact on public health surveillance. We will have to adapt to these changes to preserve our ability to do effective surveillance.
- Public health must align with the changes occurring in healthcare delivery and the focus on accountable care. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are going to be responsible for the health of the populations in their care, not just their medical care. Public health epidemiologists should be the ones who are recognized as monitoring population health, identifying needs and holding ACOs truly accountable.
- Hepatitis C, as a public health challenge, is entering a whole new level of complexity. Literally millions of cases are diagnosed and being diagnosed. We are entering an era of cure with more easily tolerated, shorter course, highly effective, but expensive therapy. We will be called on to define the burden and monitor trends, but we have never had the needed resources.
|
| Together we can improve applied epidemiology, improve public health, and improve the health of our communities. |
| |
 |
| Alfred DeMaria, Jr. is the president of CSTE and the State Epidemiologist at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. |
| |
Tags:
healthcare
infectious disease
informatics
laboratory
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Dhara Patel,
Thursday, May 8, 2014
|
Untitled Document
The Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR) is a multidisciplinary collaboration of national associations comprised of state and local agencies representatives and federal public health agencies whose goal is to improve methods at the local, state, and federal levels to detect, investigate, control, and prevent foodborne disease outbreaks. These CIFOR member organizations represent epidemiology, environmental health, public health laboratories, and regulatory agencies involved in foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak response. CIFOR identifies barriers to rapid detection and response to foodborne disease outbreaks and develops projects that address these barriers. CSTE co-chairs the CIFOR Council. More information about CIFOR can be found at www.cifor.us.
CIFOR released the second edition of the CIFOR Guidelines for Foodborne Disease Outbreak Response on April 25, 2014. The CIFOR Guidelines describe the overall approach to foodborne disease outbreaks, including preparation, detection, investigation, control and follow-up. These guidelines also describe the roles of all key organizations in foodborne disease outbreaks. The CIFOR Guidelines are targeted at local, state and federal agencies that are responsible for preventing and managing foodborne disease. |
|
| These guidelines incorporate many significant changes that have occurred in the foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak investigation framework since the first edition of the Guidelines was published in 2009. Examples of additions and changes include information about the Food Safety Modernization Act; new information about model practices in outbreak investigation and response; updated statistics, references and examples; and enhanced alignment between the Guidelines and the Toolkit. |
|
| While the publication serves as a comprehensive source of information for individuals and organizations involved in foodborne disease investigation and control, the Guidelines are not intended to replace existing procedure manuals. Instead, they are to be used as a reference document for comparison with existing procedures, for filling in gaps and updating agency-specific procedures, for creating new procedures where they do not exist, and for targeting training of program staff. |
|
| View and download the full Second Edition of the CIFOR Guidelines. If you and/or members of your organization/health department would like to request copies, please fill out this brief survey to request copies and provide an appropriate mailing address: https://www.research.net/s/89H5ZS6. |
|
| For more information on the CIFOR Guidelines, please contact Dhara Patel, MPH, at CSTE at (770) 458-3811or dpatel@cste.org. |
|
|
 |
Dhara Patel
Associate Research Analyst
The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tags:
CIFOR
food safety
infectious disease
staff spotlight
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Sara Ramey,
Thursday, April 24, 2014
|
Untitled Document
A team of four CSTE members and staff traveled to Athens, Greece to facilitate and lecture at the CSTE-CDC Influenza Data Management and Epidemiological Analysis Course. Rachelle Boulton from the Utah Department of Health, Janet Hamilton from the Florida Department of Health, Dennis Perrotta, former State Epidemiologist from Texas, and Jennifer Lemmings from CSTE, joined staff from CDC and the World Health Organization European Office in a data management training course for influenza surveillance data managers/epidemiologists in the European Region. Influenza surveillance staff from Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, and the Ukraine participated in this 5 day course. Lectures were provided in English and translated to Russian for participants as needed.
The course was designed to help surveillance data managers establish, maintain, and improve influenza surveillance systems by teaching Influenza data managers and staff roles and responsibilities, minimum data requirements for influenza surveillance, quality assurance, quality control (standardized data entry, methods for checking accuracy and consistency of data), basic data analysis, data interpretation, and reporting. Some of the lectures focused on very specific details of data management methods, such as setting up tables in Microsoft Excel, while others encouraged discussion of general concepts such as deciding on which type of baseline to choose for their data. |
|
| There was a wide range of capabilities among the participants with some having advanced knowledge and experience and others a more basic understanding of influenza surveillance data management concepts and tools. Participants especially enjoyed the hands-on work using their most recent 12 months of seasonal influenza surveillance data. These data were usually counts of influenza-like illness (ILI) or Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (SARI). CSTE members and staff each provided several lectures and individual attention to participants as they worked case studies and group activities in data management and epidemiological analysis. On the last day of training, each country provided a short presentation using their influenza data and the methods learned during the training in a mock effort to convince their Minister of Health that influenza surveillance was of vital importance and should be continued. |
|
|
 |
Dennis Perrotta
CSTE Consultant |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tags:
infectious disease
influenza
meeting summary
member spotlight
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Sara Ramey,
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
|
Untitled Document
It started with a call from an astute provider (as it usually does), an infectious disease physician, who had noticed a few cases of skin and soft tissue infections among older women from Chinatown. The lesions were described as erythematous, tender subcutaneous nodules on the fingers and hands, and one patient was subsequently diagnosed with Mycobacterium marinum. M. marinum is a bacteria that often causes cutaneous infection after contact with both fresh and salt water, especially due to aquarium exposures or fish or shellfish associated injuries. At least a few of the initial cases in New York City (NYC) reported handling fresh whole fish, purchased live or on ice from one of our local markets. Over the next few weeks, we started to hear about more cases - from other providers as well as from the routine reports we receive from CDC’s Infectious Disease Pathology Branch as dermatology providers in NYC were submitting biopsy specimens for immunohistochemical staining.
So we ramped up our outbreak response – developing our case definitions for suspect, probable and confirmed cases; sending a health alert to medical providers and laboratories requesting that they call us if they were seeing similar cases; setting up a more formal triage system to screen the initial provider calls; conducting more active casefinding by calling primary care providers, dermatologists, pathologists and hand surgeons, especially those who practice in one of the three Chinatown areas of the city; developing a structured questionnaire and database to better characterize the clinical illness and potential risk exposures; alerting public health partners via an EpiX alert to see if anyone else was seeing similar cases; getting any available isolates to our laboratory for molecular typing; working with our environmental colleagues at the city and state to begin traceback investigations and environmental testing; and alerting our federal partners, including the CDC, FDA and USDA. |
|
Though we are still in the midst of this investigation, some clues are falling into place. We are now up to about 60 cases, with most being female, between the ages of 50-80, of Chinese ethnicity who reported purchasing fresh whole fish from a tank or on ice. About 2/3 recalled having a cut or injury prior to symptom onset. But a number of different markets are involved, and we are just beginning the traceback investigation. However, unlike other foodborne outbreak investigations, there is no federal or state regulatory agency to work with who oversees the interstate sale of live fish for food consumption. So we needed to step into this regulatory void, and use our public health authority to conduct the environmental investigations at both the markets and the distributors. |
|
I have been overseeing communicable disease outbreak investigations in NYC for over 20 years now. It still amazes me that though the approach to each one is very similar, there is always something new to learn -- whether a new infectious disease etiology or a novel mode of transmission or just learning about a new setting or practice that I was unfamiliar with (in this case, the apparently well-established interstate trade of live fish for food). Our tools for outbreak detection and response have improved so dramatically since I first started here as an EIS officer in 1992 ---- with electronic laboratory reporting, syndromic surveillance, more robust IT systems for managing our surveillance and outbreak data, enhanced analytic methods to detect aberrations in our data, improved laboratory molecular diagnostics and electronic networks to communicate more rapidly with our provider and laboratory partners. |
|
| But more times than not, it’s the basics we depend on – the astute provider calling us and setting in motion the initial outbreak response steps that I first learned during my EIS training to determine if something unusual is occurring and whether there is a common exposure. With a city of over 8 million people and 50,000 providers, we still mostly rely on that one call from a provider seeing just a few cases that she or he considers unusual enough to alert us that something larger may be going on citywide. And it’s why that in addition to continuing our investments in improving our electronic surveillance infrastructure, it’s just as critical that we continue to foster relationships with our healthcare provider partners and always remind them of how powerful a single phone call can be in allowing us to detect the next big outbreak. |
|
|
|
 |
Marcelle Layton, MD
Assistant Commissioner Bureau of Communicable Disease
New York City Department of Health |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tags:
infectious disease
member spotlight
outbreak
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Sara Ramey,
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Updated: Tuesday, February 25, 2014
|
Untitled Document
Since the introduction of electronic disease surveillance systems, states and localities have worked to migrate disparate and siloed legacy surveillance systems into more integrated surveillance platforms. The goals for surveillance system integration are to utilize national standards, reduce redundancy, streamline reporting, understand disease and risk factor interactions, and increase data sharing. However, the costs, benefits and obstacles of achieving complete disease surveillance system integration are poorly understood.
CDC’s Program Collaboration and Services Integration (PCSI) program recommends integration and data harmonization of disease surveillance that currently exists both in CDC-supported legacy systems (i.e., eHARS, STD*MIS) and in state-based electronic disease surveillance systems (NEDSS) (1). While the 2010 CSTE assessment of states’ NEDSS capacity identified 34 (71%) states with some degree of integration, an increase from 23 states in 2007 (2), there are few states and localities to have fully integrated all legacy reportable infectious disease surveillance systems. |
|
| In 2013, the North Carolina completed customization of modules for reporting, case management, and entry of contact investigation data of HIV and syphilis cases. Legacy systems, eHARS and STD*MIS respectively, were converted into modules within a customized commercial-off-the-shelf NEDSS product which already included modules all reportable communicable diseases including vaccine preventable disease, sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis (TB). |
|
| The conversion process began in 2010 following implementation of TB and general communicable disease modules in 2006 and 2008, respectively. The integration required conversion and harmonization of hundred of case report data fields and laboratory results fields from the legacy systems. The mapping of data fields from eHARS to North Carolina’s NEDSS additionally required a corresponding extract mapping back into eHARS in order to report data to CDC. New releases of eHARS will necessitate continual validation of these extract maps until CDC is able to receive HL7 message feeds into NNDSS. The two-year process involved more than approximately 6,500 person-hours. Following integration, de-duplication of more than 20,000 case records was required prior to system roll-out to local health departments. |
|
| A completely integrated NEDSS platform will provide the opportunity to monitor disease overlap geographically within population subgroups, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the delivery of integrated public health program services. While an integrated system provides new surveillance opportunities, the process was long, complex, and expensive; and many challenges still remain. State and local health departments considering complete reportable infectious disease surveillance system integration should weigh the informatics challenges and personnel expenditures with the opportunities to enhance program integration. |
|
|
 |
Megan Davies, MD
State Epidemiologist
North Carolina Division of Public Health |
| |
References: |
- CDC. Program Collaboration and Service Integration: Enhancing the Prevention and Control of HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis in the United States. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009.
- CDC. State Electronic Disease Surveillance Systems – United States, 2007 and 2010. MMWR. 2011; 60(41): 1421-1423.
|
Tags:
infectious disease
member spotlight
surveillance
Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
|
|
Posted By Sara Ramey,
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Updated: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
|
Untitled Document
The governor of Vermont got a lot of attention when he dedicated his entire State of the State address to one topic: heroin. That attention was highly warranted because opioid abuse, prescription and non-prescription alike, is a major epidemic in this country, and epidemiologists are charting this epidemic and its consequences in many ways.
Prescription monitoring programs seek patterns consistent with “doctor shopping”, forgery and other diversion. Substance abuse programs track drug seizures and treatment admissions to follow patterns of abuse. Epidemiology programs track newly diagnosed cases of hepatitis C. Overdoses and overdose deaths are tracked in emergency departments and through vital records. All of these important surveillance systems track the underlying problem (addiction and substance abuse) and the consequences (overdose, infection, interaction with the criminal justice system). But, beyond counting, the epidemiologist must also be an advocate for using the data for action. |
|
| In Massachusetts, between 1990 and 2010, drug overdose deaths tripled, exceeding motor vehicle related death rate in 2000, and doubling it by 2010. These observations led to resources for the technical and programmatic enhancement of the prescription monitoring program and, in 2007, the initiation of a naloxone (Narcan®) program to train first responders, public safety officials and family members to administer the opiate receptor antagonist naloxone by nasal spray to potential overdoses. The program has resulted in the reversal of over 2,000 overdoses, so far, and an instance where drug users followed a police car to alert them so that they could reverse an overdoses. The philosophy is that one has to survive to kick the habit. Driven by the data, federal and state funding has also gone to community prevention programs and multi-community Opioid Abuse Prevention Collaboratives. |
|
| The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has observed increasing numbers of reported cases of hepatitis C virus infection in people between the ages of 15 and 25; the rate almost doubling between 2002 and 2012, while newly diagnosed cases went down in other age groups. These 15-25 year-olds almost certainly acquired their infection well within the previous 10 years. While much attention has been appropriately directed toward the hepatitis C epidemic in the “baby boomer” generation, hepatitis C in adolescents and young adults represents a new epidemic wave of hepatitis C. All indications are that these infections were acquired through injection drug use. Interviews are difficult to obtain, but the most common story is prescription opioid use leading to injection of prescription opioids and heroin. Heroin is cheaper than prescription drugs and all too available. Because of the difficulty in getting enough data from interviews to explore the networks of transmission of hepatitis C among adolescents and young adults, we are exploring sequencing of hepatitis C viruses that come to our public health laboratory to try to use the virus RNA sequences to construct networks. There hasn’t been much HIV co-infection yet, but that may be just a matter of time before that virus is introduced into these networks. |
|
| While the hepatitis C data are overwhelming, both in their implications for the future and the sheer number of new reports (in Massachusetts, now one to two thousand positive laboratory reports for hepatitis C in the age group each year), an approach to this massive epidemic is not easily identified. Of course, there should be every and all attempts to prevent and treat addiction. But what can be done in the meantime? As epidemiologists and public health professionals, we cannot just watch this tsunami of hepatitis C cases without actively encouraging the use of data to inform interventions, be they harm reduction approaches directed at safer injection or using observational data and network analysis to identify means of getting prevention and treatment messages to those at risk and infected. |
|
|
 |
Alfred DeMaria, MD
State Epidemiologist
Massachusetts Department of Health |
Tags:
infectious disease
member spotlight
substance abuse
surveillance
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|