Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting: A comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department

Brian Dixon, Zuoyi Zhang, Patrick T.S. Lai, Uzay Kirbiyik, Jennifer Williams, Rebecca Hills, Debra Revere, P. Joseph Gibson, Shaun Grannis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. Methods: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. Results: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). Conclusions: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number87
JournalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 23 2017

Fingerprint

Health
Telefacsimile
Hospital Laboratories
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
Information Storage and Retrieval
Disease Outbreaks
Linear Models
Public Health
Growth

Keywords

  • Completeness
  • Disease notification
  • Electronic laboratory reporting
  • Health information exchange
  • Public health surveillance
  • Timeliness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting : A comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department. / Dixon, Brian; Zhang, Zuoyi; Lai, Patrick T.S.; Kirbiyik, Uzay; Williams, Jennifer; Hills, Rebecca; Revere, Debra; Gibson, P. Joseph; Grannis, Shaun.

In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 1, 87, 23.06.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dixon, Brian ; Zhang, Zuoyi ; Lai, Patrick T.S. ; Kirbiyik, Uzay ; Williams, Jennifer ; Hills, Rebecca ; Revere, Debra ; Gibson, P. Joseph ; Grannis, Shaun. / Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting : A comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department. In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2017 ; Vol. 17, No. 1.
@article{d53565fba86a4871bab0fe56f3058217,
title = "Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting: A comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department",
abstract = "Background: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. Methods: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. Results: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1{\%} for providers and 84.4{\%} for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). Conclusions: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.",
keywords = "Completeness, Disease notification, Electronic laboratory reporting, Health information exchange, Public health surveillance, Timeliness",
author = "Brian Dixon and Zuoyi Zhang and Lai, {Patrick T.S.} and Uzay Kirbiyik and Jennifer Williams and Rebecca Hills and Debra Revere and Gibson, {P. Joseph} and Shaun Grannis",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1186/s12911-017-0491-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
journal = "BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making",
issn = "1472-6947",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting

T2 - A comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department

AU - Dixon, Brian

AU - Zhang, Zuoyi

AU - Lai, Patrick T.S.

AU - Kirbiyik, Uzay

AU - Williams, Jennifer

AU - Hills, Rebecca

AU - Revere, Debra

AU - Gibson, P. Joseph

AU - Grannis, Shaun

PY - 2017/6/23

Y1 - 2017/6/23

N2 - Background: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. Methods: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. Results: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). Conclusions: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.

AB - Background: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. Methods: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. Results: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). Conclusions: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.

KW - Completeness

KW - Disease notification

KW - Electronic laboratory reporting

KW - Health information exchange

KW - Public health surveillance

KW - Timeliness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021251019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021251019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12911-017-0491-8

DO - 10.1186/s12911-017-0491-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 28645285

AN - SCOPUS:85021251019

VL - 17

JO - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

JF - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

SN - 1472-6947

IS - 1

M1 - 87

ER -