The timeliness of notification of clinically suspected cases of dengue imported into north Queensland

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the timeliness of notifications by medical practitioners of clinically suspected dengue importations into north Queensland (NQ). Describe the features the disease and determine the likely duration of viraemia prior to implementating public health measures. Method: Since December 1994, the Tropical Public Health Unit (TPHU) has maintained a register of all imported cases of dengue into NQ. Only confirmed viraemic cases were included in the study. Timeliness of notifications was defined as the interval between the first medical consultation in NQ and notification to TPHU. An Epi info database was developed and used to analyse data. Results: There were 31 confirmed dengue importations into NQ during the study period, including all four dengue serotypes. The largest source (39%) was Papua New Guinea. The median time for notifications was 5.5 days. Doctor notifications ranged from 0 to 21 days (median 2 days), remaining notifications range from 1 to 42 days (median 10 days) (p<0.05).The mean duration of viraemia of public health importance was 7 days (2–12 days). Conclusions: Of concern, doctors failed to notify >50% of suspected cases and only 26% of notifications were received within 48 hours. Notification delays led to prolonged viraemia of public health importance increasing the potential risk of secondary infections. Implications: General practitioners need to promptly notify all clinically suspected cases of dengue in travellers recently arrived in NQ. The TPHU intends to reemphasise to general practitioner the importance of timely notifications and develop an orientation package for new doctors.

Best Practices in Dengue Surveillance: A Report from the Asia-Pacific and Americas Dengue Prevention Boards

“…However, even mandatory reporting is not sufficient; additional efforts are needed to improve and maintain a high level of quality reporting. All suspected cases must be reported to a central dengue unit in the health ministry as rapidly as possible and providers should be reminded that timely reporting can lead to effective response [26]. Laboratory confirmation of suspected cases should always be sought, except during outbreaks.…”

Detecting and Responding to a Dengue Outbreak: Evaluation of Existing Strategies in Country Outbreak Response Planning

“…Indeed, there is often fragmented reporting, inadequate methods of notification, and weakness in the transfer of case information from local to central level for analysis, with a lack of local use of analysis data. This may lead to neglect of an immediate response, especially if a number of intermediaries are in place as has been identified [19]. It may be suggested that although a coordinated response from local government may be difficult in some settings, the use of local data for risk communication to the public, clear reporting flowcharts in place, a functional feedback system, data analysis also at the lowest possible level, and capacity building in surveillance at the periphery may be crucial.…”

Forecasting dengue vaccine demand in disease endemic and non-endemic countries

“…We also included areas of the US with dengue and covered by their national immunization program and Australia (North Queensland) and Taiwan where dengue epidemics occurred following introductions by travelers. 32,33 While dengue occurs in Africa, none of these countries were included because of the unknown public health impact. 34 We excluded dengue-endemic countries with a population of <100,000.…”