CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Data-Driven Disease SurveillanceElectronic Health Records SystemsInfection Control in Healthcare

A Comparison of the Completeness and Timeliness of Automated Electronic Laboratory Reporting and Spontaneous Reporting of Notifiable Conditions

Open access
Overhage, J. Marc, Grannis, Shaun, McDonald, Clement J.·2008·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.2006.092700PMC PMC2376898
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives. We examined whether automated electronic laboratory reporting of notifiable-diseases results in information being delivered to public health departments more completely and quickly than is the case with spontaneous, paper-based reporting. Methods. We used data from a local public health department, hospital infection control departments, and a community-wide health information exchange to identify all potential cases of notifiable conditions that occurred in Marion County, Ind, during the first quarter of 2001. We compared traditional spontaneous reporting to the health department with automated electronic laboratory reporting through the health information exchange. Results. After reports obtained using the 2 methods had been matched, there were 4785 unique reports for 53 different conditions during the study period. Chlamydia was the most common condition, followed by hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and gonorrhea. Automated electronic laboratory reporting identified 4.4 times as many cases as traditional spontaneous, paper-based methods and identified those cases 7.9 days earlier than spontaneous reporting. Conclusions. Automated electronic laboratory reporting improves the completeness and timeliness of disease surveillance, which will enhance public health awareness and reporting efficiency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2006.092700

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Henderson DA. The looming threat of bioterrorism. Science. 1999;283:1279–1282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Fine A, Layton M. Lessons from West Nile encephalitis outbreak in New York City, 1999: implications for bioterrorism preparedness. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:277–282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Falagas ME, Kiriaze IJ. Reaction to the threat of influenza pandemic: the mass media and the public. Crit Care. 2006;10:408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Jernigan DB, Raghunathan PL, Bell BP, et al. Investigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax, United States, 2001: epidemiologic findings. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:1019–1028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [6]Institute of Medicine. Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992. [PubMed]
  6. [7]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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [8]Doyle TJ, Glynn MK, Groseclose SL. Completeness of notifiable infectious disease reporting in the United States: an analytical literature review. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:866–874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [9]Jajosky RA, Groseclose SL. Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. BMC Public Health. 2004;4:29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [10]Klaucke D, Buehler J, Thacker S, Parrish R, Trowbride F, Berkelman R. Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1988;37:1–15. [Google Scholar]
  10. [11]Effler P, Ching-Lee M, Bogard A, Ieong M, Nekomoto T, Jernigan DB. Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. JAMA. 1999;282:1845–1850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. [12]Godes JR, Hall WN, Dean AG, Morse CD. Laboratory-based disease surveillance: a survey of state laboratory directors. Minn Med. 1982;65:762–764. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [13]Schramm M, Vogt R, Mamolen M. The surveillance of communicable disease in Vermont: who reports? Public Health Rep. 1991;106:95–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [14]Vogt R. Laboratory reporting and disease surveillance. J Public Health Manage Pract. 1996;2:28–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [15]Harkess JR, Gildon BA, Archer PW, Istre GR. Is passive surveillance always insensitive? An evaluation of shigellosis surveillance in Oklahoma. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128:878–881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. [16]Standaert S, Lefkowitz I, Horan J, Huncheson R, Shaffner W. The reporting of communicable diseases: a controlled study of Neisseria meningitides and Haemophilus influenzae infections. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20: 30–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. [17]Backer HD, Bissell SR, Vugia DJ. Disease reporting from an automated laboratory-based reporting system to a state health department via local county health departments. Public Health Rep. 2001;116: 257–265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [18]McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Dexter P, Takesue BY, Dwyer DM. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:675–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. [21]Brennan PF. Recommendations for national health threat surveillance and response. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:204–206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [22]Panackal AA, M’ikanatha NM, Tsui F-C, et al. Automatic electronic laboratory-based reporting of notifiable infectious diseases at a large health system. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:685–691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. [23]M’ikanatha NM, Southwell B, Lautenbach E. Automated laboratory reporting of infectious diseases in a climate of bioterrorism. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no9/02-0486.htm. Accessed November 5, 2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. [24]McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Tierney WM. The Regenstrief Medical Record System: a quarter century experience. Int J Med Inform. 1999;54:225–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. [25]Overhage JM, Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Design and implementation of the Indianapolis Network for Patient Care and Research. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1995; 83:48–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. [26]McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Barnes M, et al. The Indiana Network for Patient Care: a working local health information infrastructure. Health Aff. 2005; 224:1214–1220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. [27]Overhage JM, Suico J, McDonald CJ. Electronic laboratory reporting: barriers, solutions and findings. J Public Health Manage Pract. 2001;7:60–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. [28]Roush S, Birkhead G, Koo D, Cobb A, Fleming D. Mandatory reporting of diseases and conditions by health care professionals and laboratories. JAMA. 1999;282:164–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. [29]Wittes JT, Colton T, Sidel VW. Capture-recapture methods for assessing the completeness of case ascertainment when using multiple information sources. J Chronic Dis. 1974;27:25–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. [30]Berkelman RL. Emerging infectious diseases in the United States, 1993. J Infect Dis. 1994;170: 272–277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. [31]Eisenberg MS, Bender TR. Botulism in Alaska, 1947 through 1974: early detection of cases and investigation of outbreaks as a means of reducing mortality. JAMA. 1976;235:35–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. [33]Kaufmann AF, Meltzer MI, Schmid GP. The economic impact of a bioterrorist attack: are prevention and postattack intervention programs justifiable? Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3:83–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. [34]Wein LM, Craft DL, Kaplan EH. Emergency response to an anthrax attack. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:4346–4351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Overhage, J. M., Grannis, S., & McDonald, C. J.
Affiliations
Regenstrief Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2008-02
Volume
98
Issue
2
Pages
344-350
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.2006.092700
PMC
PMC2376898
OpenAlex
W1977419376
Cited by
179
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 15
FWCI
12.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (N01-LM-63546, G08LM008232, N01-LM-4-3410)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
notifiable diseases, spontaneous reporting, disease surveillance, health information exchange, public health departments, chlamydia, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, reporting timeliness
MeSH terms
Electronic Data Processing, Chlamydia Infections, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Humans, Indiana, Laboratories, Population Surveillance, Public Health Administration, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Disease Notification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review