Mandatory disease reporting by German laboratories: a survey of attitudes, practices and needs

Zucs, A P; Benzler, Justus; Krause, Gérard

doi:10.2807/esm.10.01.00512-en

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Available resources: availability of staff, technical facilities (fe fax) and rapid laboratory transport [ 25 , 27 , 42 ]. Barriers were different laboratory software among laboratories and using out-of-state laboratory facilities [ 38 , 53 , 57 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timeliness of notification systems for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTimely notification of infectious diseases is crucial for prompt response by public health services. Adequate notification systems facilitate timely notification. A systematic literature review was performed to assess outcomes of studies on notification timeliness and to determine which aspects of notification systems are associated with timely notification.MethodologyArticles reviewing timeliness of notifications published between 2000 and 2017 were searched in Pubmed and Scopus. Using a standardized notification chain, timeliness of reporting system for each article was defined as either sufficient (≥ 80% notifications in time), partly sufficient (≥ 50–80%), or insufficient (< 50%) according to the article’s predefined timeframe, a standardized timeframe for all articles, and a disease specific timeframe. Electronic notification systems were compared with conventional methods (postal mail, fax, telephone, email) and mobile phone reporting.Results48 articles were identified. In almost one third of the studies with a predefined timeframe (39), timeliness of notification systems was either sufficient or insufficient (11/39, 28% and 12/39, 31% resp.). Applying the standardized timeframe (45 studies) revealed similar outcomes (13/45, 29%, sufficient notification timeframe, vs 15/45, 33%, insufficient). The disease specific timeframe was not met by any study. Systems involving reporting by laboratories most often complied sufficiently with predefined or standardized timeframes. Outcomes were not related to electronic, conventional notification systems or mobile phone reporting. Electronic systems were faster in comparative studies (10/13); this hardly resulted in sufficient timeliness, neither according to predefined nor to standardized timeframes.ConclusionA minority of notification systems meets either predefined, standardized or disease specific timeframes. Systems including laboratory reporting are associated with timely notification. Electronic systems reduce reporting delay, but implementation needs considerable effort to comply with notification timeframes. During outbreak threats, patient, doctors and laboratory testing delays need to be reduced to achieve timely detection and notification. Public health authorities should incorporate procedures for this in their preparedness plans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timeliness of notification systems for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other countries such as that of Germany and the Republic of Korea, an electronic reporting system is utilised for the purposes of both assessment and notification of diseases [29,33]. Unfortunately, despite the clear differences in procedure of reporting notifiable diseases in these four countries, due to the qualitative nature of the Korean study, and the lack of overall papers returned, we cannot state confidently from these datasets that one particular system leads to a better completeness of reporting.…”

Section: Tteh000593 4(4)2023mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need to Improve the Notification of Infectious Disease Systems in the UK–A Comparison of Four OECD Countries

Shin

2023

TTEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reporting notifiable diseases is one of the keystones of modern disease surveillance and public health policy making. The key requirements to achieve such coming from regular, accurate, and complete reporting data. This, however, does not happen to the high rate of reporting as it should, resulting in incomplete data and thus reducing the effectivity of disease surveillance for the purpose of public health in the UK/England. A literature review was performed for the purpose of a) Analyzing if other countries similar to the UK/England also under-report notifiable diseases and b) Analyse if there are any traits which may be benchmarked in the UK/England to improve on the completeness of reporting of notifiable diseases.The papers returned from our searches showed that; a) Under-reporting of notifiable diseases also occur in other countries, not only the UK, b) Completeness of disease notification differ per disease type, c) Electronic reporting is a preferred method of notification for the purposes of improving notification rates, and d) A greater effort in many countries is required to more clearly see the severity of under-reporting that is occurring.

show abstract

“…In a survey of attitudes, practices and needs, it was identified that more than 66% of responding medical microbiology laboratories in Germany would favour electronic reporting of mandatory diseases to the current paper format (Zucs et al 2005). SmiNet is a computerised Receipt of reports at the national level at the same time as the regional level was noted to improve the timeliness of surveillance.…”

Section: When a Statutorily Notifiable Pathogen Is Identified Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveillance of waterborne disease in European member states: a qualitative study

Risebro

Hunter

2007

Journal of Water and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We sought to explore perceived strengths and weaknesses of surveillance systems for the detection of drinking-water-related illness in Europe based on the experience of individuals utilising such systems. We designed and conducted a qualitative semi-structured interview study with thematic analysis. Interviews took place in six European countries with seven experts in epidemiology, water and public health. Interviewees remarked upon variation between and within countries in laboratory and sampling protocols and reporting practice; these were felt to influence timeliness and sensitivity of laboratory-and clinician-report-based surveillance.Electronic reporting, reminders to report and direct report relay to national level were considered strengths of report-based surveillance. A need was expressed for more detailed case demographic information to facilitate outbreak detection. Existing infrastructure permitting, prescriptions data, anti-diarrhoeal pharmaceutical sales, absenteeism and consultations were cited as useful outbreak indicators. Information regarding consumer water quality complaints was highlighted as a potentially useful data source. Collaboration with water companies (concerning water distribution and incidents), and constructing and maintaining relationships with local and external data providers were cited as requisites of effective surveillance. Inter-and intraorganisational collaboration and information integration are likely to improve surveillance, leading to more astute estimates of the waterborne disease burden.

show abstract

Mandatory disease reporting by German laboratories: a survey of attitudes, practices and needs

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Timeliness of notification systems for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review

Timeliness of notification systems for infectious diseases: A systematic literature review

The Need to Improve the Notification of Infectious Disease Systems in the UK–A Comparison of Four OECD Countries

Surveillance of waterborne disease in European member states: a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About