Analysis of timeliness of infectious disease reporting in the Netherlands

BackgroundTimely reporting of infectious disease cases to public health authorities is essential to effective public health response. To evaluate the timeliness of reporting to the Dutch Municipal Health Services (MHS), we used as quantitative measures the intervals between onset of symptoms and MHS notification, and between laboratory diagnosis and notification with regard to six notifiable diseases.MethodsWe retrieved reporting data from June 2003 to December 2008 from the Dutch national notification system for shigellosis, EHEC/STEC infection, typhoid fever, measles, meningococcal disease, and hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection. For each disease, median intervals between date of onset and MHS notification were calculated and compared with the median incubation period. The median interval between date of laboratory diagnosis and MHS notification was similarly analysed. For the year 2008, we also investigated whether timeliness is improved by MHS agreements with physicians and laboratories that allow direct laboratory reporting. Finally, we investigated whether reports made by post, fax, or e-mail were more timely.ResultsThe percentage of infectious diseases reported within one incubation period varied widely, between 0.4% for shigellosis and 90.3% for HAV infection. Not reported within two incubation periods were 97.1% of shigellosis cases, 76.2% of cases of EHEC/STEC infection, 13.3% of meningococcosis cases, 15.7% of measles cases, and 29.7% of typhoid fever cases. A substantial percentage of infectious disease cases was reported more than three days after laboratory diagnosis, varying between 12% for meningococcosis and 42% for shigellosis. MHS which had agreements with physicians and laboratories showed a significantly shorter notification time compared to MHS without such agreements.ConclusionsOver the study period, many cases of the six notifiable diseases were not reported within two incubation periods, and many were reported more than three days after laboratory diagnosis. An increase in direct laboratory reporting of diagnoses to MHS would improve timeliness, as would the use of fax rather than post or e-mail. Automated reporting systems have to be explored in the Netherlands. Development of standardised and improved measures for timeliness is needed.

[1]  Samuel L Groseclose,et al.  Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases , 2004, BMC public health.

[2]  F. Mostashari,et al.  Benefits and barriers to electronic laboratory results reporting for notifiable diseases: the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene experience. , 2007, American journal of public health.

[3]  R. Lazarus,et al.  Viewpoint Paper: Electronic Support for Public Health: Validated Case Finding and Reporting for Notifiable Diseases Using Electronic Medical Data , 2009, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[4]  N. McCarthy,et al.  Invasive meningococcal disease: completeness and timeliness of reporting of confirmed cases in Thames Valley, 2006-2007. , 2009, Public Health.

[5]  S. Balter,et al.  Impact of electronic laboratory reporting on hepatitis A surveillance in New York City. , 2008, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[6]  Anna Jansson,et al.  Timeliness of case reporting in the Swedish statutory surveillance of communicable diseases 1998–2002 , 2004, Scandinavian journal of infectious diseases.

[7]  P. Fine The interval between successive cases of an infectious disease. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[8]  A. Bosman,et al.  Electronic reporting improves timeliness and completeness of infectious disease notification, The Netherlands, 2003. , 2005, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[9]  L. Lee,et al.  Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. , 2001, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[10]  Sung-il Cho,et al.  Timeliness of national notifiable diseases surveillance system in Korea: a cross-sectional study , 2009, BMC public health.

[11]  M. Ferson,et al.  Notification of infectious diseases by general practitioners: a quantitative and qualitative study , 2000, The Medical journal of Australia.

[12]  R. Berkelman,et al.  A review of strategies for enhancing the completeness of notifiable disease reporting. , 2005, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[13]  G. Rubin,et al.  Improving surveillance of infectious diseases in New South Wales , 1991, The Medical journal of Australia.

[14]  A. Nicoll,et al.  Evidence base of incubation periods, periods of infectiousness and exclusion policies for the control of communicable diseases in schools and preschools. , 2001, The Pediatric infectious disease journal.

[15]  Fiona Day,et al.  General practitioner notifications of gastroenteritis and food poisoning: cause for concern. , 2007, Journal of public health.

[16]  K. Herck,et al.  Effect of Hepatitis A Vaccination Programs , 2005 .

[17]  Richard L Vogt,et al.  Evaluation of the timeliness and completeness of a Web-based notifiable disease reporting system by a local health department. , 2006, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[18]  G. Sonder,et al.  Effect of hepatitis A vaccination programs for migrant children on the incidence of hepatitis A in The Netherlands. , 2009, European journal of public health.

[19]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. , 2008, American journal of public health.

[20]  Potential effects of electronic laboratory reporting on improving timeliness of infectious disease notification--Florida, 2002-2006. , 2008, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[21]  K. Ekdahl,et al.  SmiNet-2: Description of an internet-based surveillance system for communicable diseases in Sweden. , 2006, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.