• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP >Reassessing provider reporting in the age of electronic surveillance
【24h】

Reassessing provider reporting in the age of electronic surveillance

机译：在电子监视时代重新评估提供商报告

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Context: In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began funding health departments to implement integrated electronic systems for disease surveillance. Objective: Determine the impact of discontinuing provider reporting for chronic hepatitis B and C, hepatitis A, and select enteric diseases. Design: Laboratory and provider surveillance reports of chronic hepatitis B and C and enteric infections (Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Listeria, noncholera Vibrio [eg, Vibrio parahaemolyticus], Salmonella, Shigella, and hepatitis A) diagnosed on January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010 were compared for completeness and timeliness. Number of cases submitted by laboratories, providers, or both were assessed. Results: From 2007 to 2010, the proportion of cases reported only by providers for enteric disease infections differed by disease, ranging from 4% (Shiga toxin-producing E coli) to 20% (noncholera Vibrio). For chronic hepatitis C, less than 1% of cases were reported by providers only. The number of complete laboratory reports increased over the time period from 80% to 95% for chronic hepatitis and 92% to 94% for enteric infections. Laboratory reports had higher completion for date of birth, sex, and zip codes. Provider reports had less than 60% completion for race/ethnicity versus 20% for laboratories. Laboratories were faster than providers at reporting chronic hepatitis B (median 4 vs 21 days), chronic hepatitis C (4 vs 18 days), Campylobacter (6 vs 10 days), noncholera Vibrio (11 vs 12 days), Salmonella (6 vs 7 days), Shigella (6 vs 13 days), and hepatitis A (3 vs 8 days); providers were faster than laboratories at reporting Shiga toxin-producing E coli (4 vs 7 days) and Listeria (5 vs 6 days). Conclusions: Laboratories reported more cases and their reports were timelier and more complete for all categories except race/ethnicity for chronic hepatitis, Campylobacter, noncholera Vibrio, Salmonella, Shigella, and hepatitis A. For chronic hepatitis, provider reporting could be eliminated in New York City with no adverse effects on disease surveillance. For enteric infections, more work is needed before discontinuing provider reporting.
机译：背景：2000年，疾病控制与预防中心开始资助卫生部门实施用于疾病监测的集成电子系统。目的：确定中止提供者报告对慢性乙型和丙型肝炎，甲型肝炎和选择肠道疾病的影响。设计：1月1日诊断为慢性乙型和丙型肝炎和肠道感染（产志贺毒素的大肠杆菌，弯曲杆菌，李斯特菌，非霍乱弧菌（例如，副溶血性弧菌），沙门氏菌，志贺氏菌和甲型肝炎）的实验室和提供者监督报告。比较2007年至2010年12月31日的完整性和及时性。评估了实验室，提供者或两者提交的案例数。结果：从2007年到2010年，仅由肠道疾病感染提供者报告的病例比例因疾病而异，范围从4％（产生志贺毒素的大肠杆菌）到20％（非霍乱弧菌）。对于慢性丙型肝炎，仅提供者报告的病例不到1％。完整的实验室报告数量在此期间从慢性肝炎的80％增至95％，对于肠胃感染的92％增至94％。实验室报告对出生日期，性别和邮政编码的填写较高。提供者报告的种族/民族完成率不到60％，而实验室的完成率不到20％。在报告慢性乙型肝炎（中位4 vs 21天），慢性丙型肝炎（4 vs 18天），弯曲杆菌（6 vs 10天），非霍乱弧菌（11 vs 12天），沙门氏菌（6 vs 7）方面，实验室比提供者要快。天），志贺氏菌（6天vs 13天）和甲肝（3天vs 8天）;提供者在报告产生志贺毒素的大肠杆菌（4天比7天）和李斯特菌（5天比6天）方面比实验室快。结论：实验室报告的病例更多，所有类别的报告更及时，更完整，但慢性肝炎，弯曲杆菌，非霍乱弧菌，沙门氏菌，志贺氏菌和甲型肝炎的种族/民族除外。对于慢性肝炎，纽约可以取消提供者的报告城市对疾病监测无不良影响。对于肠道感染，在中止提供者报告之前，需要做更多的工作。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号