Disease surveillance for hepatitis C in the United States is limited by the occult nature of many of these infections, the large volume of cases, and limited public health resources. Through a series of discrete processes, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health modified its surveillance system in an attempt to improve timeliness and completeness of reporting and case follow-up of hepatitis C. These processes included clinician-based reporting, electronic laboratory reporting, deployment of a Web-based disease surveillance system, automated triage of pertinent data, and automated character recognition software for case-report processing. These changes have resulted in an increase in the timeliness of reporting.
References
1.
FlemingDTZambrowskiAFongFLombardAMercedesLMillerC. Surveillance programs for chronic viral hepatitis in three health departments. Public Health Rep2006;121:23–35.
2.
KlevensRMMillerJVonderwahlCSpeersSAlelisKSweetK. Population-based surveillance for hepatitis C virus, United States, 2006–2007. Emerg Infect Dis2009;15:1499–502.
3.
Institute of Medicine. Hepatitis and liver cancer: a national strategy for prevention and control of hepatitis B and C. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2010.
4.
Recommendations for prevention and control of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCV-related chronic disease. MMWR Recomm Rep1998;47(RR-19):1–39.
5.
Autonomy. TeleForm®: Version 9.1. San Francisco: Autonomy; 1992.
6.
JorgensenCKKarlsmoseB. Validation of automated forms processing. A comparison of Teleform with manual data entry. Comput Biol Med1998;28:659–67.
7.
QuanKHViganoAFainsingerRL. Evaluation of a data collection tool (TELEform) for palliative care research. J Palliat Med2003;6:401–8.
8.
DohertySDavisLLeschkePValpianiAWhitelyEYarnoldD. Automated versus manual audit in the emergency department. Int J Health Care Qual Assur2008;21:671–8.
9.
EfferPChing-LeeMBogardAIeongMCNekomotoTJerniganD. Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods [published erratum appears in JAMA 2000;283:2937]. JAMA1999;282:1845–50.
10.
PanackalAAM'IkanathaNMTsuiFCMcMahonJWagnerMMDixonBW. Automatic electronic laboratory-based reporting of notifiable infectious diseases at a large health system. Emerg Infect Dis2002;8:685–91.
11.
OverhageJMGrannisSMcDonaldCJ. A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. Am J Public Health2008;98:344–50.
12.
KlompasMHaneyGChurchDLazarusRHouXPlattR. Automated identification of acute hepatitis B using electronic medical record data to facilitate public health surveillance. PLoS One2008;3:e2626.
13.
Automated detection and reporting of notifiable diseases using electronic medical records versus passive surveillance—Massachusetts, June 2006–July 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2008;57(14):373–6.
14.
LazarusRKlompasMCampionFXMcNabbSJHouXDanielJ. Electronic support for public health: validated case finding and reporting for notifiable diseases using electronic medical data. J Am Med Inform Assoc2009;16:18–24.
15.
JajoskyRAGrosecloseSL. Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. BMC Public Health2004;4:29.
