Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:16:08.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Public Health in the Field and the Emergency Operations Center: Methods for Implementing Real-Time Onsite Syndromic Surveillance at Large Public Events

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2013

Kristen Pogreba-Brown*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Tucson
Kyle McKeown
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Tucson
Sarah Santana
Affiliation:
Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Phoenix, Arizona.
Alisa Diggs
Affiliation:
Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Phoenix, Arizona.
Jennifer Stewart
Affiliation:
Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Phoenix, Arizona.
Robin B. Harris
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Tucson
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kristen Pogreba-Brown, PhD, MPH, 1295 N Martin, PO Box 245211, Tucson, AZ 85724 (e-mail [email protected]).

Abstract

Objective

To develop an onsite syndromic surveillance system for the early detection of public health emergencies and outbreaks at large public events.

Methods

As the third largest public health jurisdiction in the United States, Maricopa County Department of Public Health has worked with academic and first-response partners to create an event-targeted syndromic surveillance (EVENTSS) system. This system complements long-standing traditional emergency department-based surveillance and provides public health agencies with rapid reporting of possible clusters of illness.

Results

At 6 high profile events, 164 patient reports were collected. Gastrointestinal and neurological syndromes were most commonly reported, followed by multisyndromic reports. Neurological symptoms were significantly increased during hot weather events. The interview rate was 2 to 7 interviews per 50 000 people per hour, depending on the ambient temperature.

Discussion

Study data allowed an estimation of baseline values of illness occurring at large public events. As more data are collected, prediction models can be built to determine threshold levels for public health response.

Conclusions

EVENTSS was conducted largely by volunteer public health graduate students, increasing the response capacity for the health department. Onsite epidemiology staff could make informed decisions and take actions quickly in the event of a public health emergency. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–8)

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Measles Confirmed in Central Indiana. Indiana State Department of Health website; February 8, 2012.Google Scholar
2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. BioSense Home. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; December 14, 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/biosense/. Accessed August 14, 2012.Google Scholar
3.Bradley, CA, Rolka, H, Walker, D, Loonsk, J. BioSense: implementation of a National Early Event Detection and Situational Awareness System. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(suppl):11-19.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Lewis, MD, Pavlin, JA, Mansfield, JL, etal. Disease outbreak detection system using syndromic data in the greater Washington DC area. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:180-186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Henning, KJ. What is syndromic surveillance? MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53(suppl):5-11.Google Scholar
6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early Aberration Reporting System (EARS). Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jul 2010:2.Google Scholar
7.Koo, D. Leveraging syndromic surveillance. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;11:181-183.Google Scholar
8.Gesteland, PH, Wagner, MM, Chapman, WW, etal. Rapid deployment of an electronic disease surveillance system in the state of Utah for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002;285–289.Google Scholar
9.County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Acute Communicable Disease Control. Democratic National Convention – bioterrorism syndromic surveillance. Los Angeles, California: County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services; 2000. Special studies report.Google Scholar
10.Osaka, K, Takahashi, H, Ohyama, T. Testing a symptom-based surveillance system at high-profile gatherings as a preparatory measure for bioterrorism. Epidemiol Infect. 2002;129:429-434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Syndromic surveillance for bioterrorism following the attacks on the World Trade Center--New York City, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002;51(spec No.):13-15.Google Scholar
12.Yan, P, Zeng, D, Chen, H. A review of public health syndromic surveillance systems. lecture notes in computer science. In: 4th IEEE Intelligence and Security Informatics. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2006:249-260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Groenewold, M. Reliability and Validity of EMS Dispatch Code-Based Categorization of Emergency Patients for Syndromic Surveillance [thesis]. Louisville, Kentucky: University of Louisville; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Komatsu, K. Surveillance for the 2001 World Series in Arizona. Paper presented at the National Syndromic Surveillance Conference; September 24, 2002; New York, New York.Google Scholar
15.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rapid Response Registry Survey Form Version 021706. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
16.Hartnett, E, Paoli, GM, Schaffner, DW. Modeling the public health system response to a terrorist event in the food supply. Risk Anal. 2009;29:1506-1520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Pogreba-Brown, K, Harris, RB, Stewart, J, Anderson, S, Erhart, LM, England, B. Outbreak investigation partnerships: utilizing a student response team in public health responses. Public Health Rep. 2010;125:916-922.Google Scholar