TY - JOUR
T1 - A survey of usage protocols of syndromic surveillance systems by state public health departments in the United States
AU - Uscher-Pines, Lori
AU - Farrell, Corey L.
AU - Cattani, Jacqueline
AU - Hsieh, Yu Hsiang
AU - Moskal, Michael D.
AU - Babin, Steven M.
AU - Gaydos, Charlotte A.
AU - Rothman, Richard E.
PY - 2009/9
Y1 - 2009/9
N2 - Objective: To broadly describe current syndromic surveillance systems in use throughout the United States and to provide basic descriptive information on responses to syndromic system signals. Methods: Cross-sectional survey (telephone and e-mail) of state epidemiologists in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Results: Forty-one states participated in the survey for a response rate of 80 percent. Thirty-three states (80%) had at least one syndromic surveillance system in addition to BioSense operating within the state. Every state with an urban area at highest risk of a terrorist attack reported monitoring syndromic surveillance data, and a state's overall preparedness level was not related to the presence (or lack) of operational syndromic surveillance systems. The most common syndromic surveillance systems included BioSense (n = 20, 61%) and RODS (n = 13, 39%). Seventy-six percent of states with syndromic surveillance initiated investigations at the state level, 64 percent at the county level, and 45 percent at both the state and county levels. Conclusions: The majority of states reported using syndromic surveillance systems, with greatest penetration in those at highest risk for a terrorist attack. Most states used multiple systems and had varied methods (central and local) of responding to alerts, indicating the need for detailed response protocols.
AB - Objective: To broadly describe current syndromic surveillance systems in use throughout the United States and to provide basic descriptive information on responses to syndromic system signals. Methods: Cross-sectional survey (telephone and e-mail) of state epidemiologists in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Results: Forty-one states participated in the survey for a response rate of 80 percent. Thirty-three states (80%) had at least one syndromic surveillance system in addition to BioSense operating within the state. Every state with an urban area at highest risk of a terrorist attack reported monitoring syndromic surveillance data, and a state's overall preparedness level was not related to the presence (or lack) of operational syndromic surveillance systems. The most common syndromic surveillance systems included BioSense (n = 20, 61%) and RODS (n = 13, 39%). Seventy-six percent of states with syndromic surveillance initiated investigations at the state level, 64 percent at the county level, and 45 percent at both the state and county levels. Conclusions: The majority of states reported using syndromic surveillance systems, with greatest penetration in those at highest risk for a terrorist attack. Most states used multiple systems and had varied methods (central and local) of responding to alerts, indicating the need for detailed response protocols.
KW - Outbreak investigation
KW - Response protocol
KW - State epidemiologist
KW - Syndromic surveillance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349095223&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349095223&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a5d36b
DO - 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a5d36b
M3 - Article
C2 - 19704312
AN - SCOPUS:70349095223
SN - 1078-4659
VL - 15
SP - 432
EP - 438
JO - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
JF - Journal of Public Health Management and Practice
IS - 5
ER -