Lessons Learned From Implementation of Mpox Surveillance During an Outbreak Response in Tennessee, 2022

Objectives: Mpox surveillance was integral during the 2022 outbreak response. We evaluated implementation of mpox surveillance in Tennessee during an outbreak response and made recommendations for surveillance during emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Methods: To understand surveillance implemen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Public health reports (1974) 2024-09, Vol.139 (5), p.566-572
Hauptverfasser: Thomas, Christine M., Shaffner, Julie, Johnson, Renee, Wiedeman, Caleb, Fill, Mary-Margaret A., Jones, Timothy F., Schaffner, William, Dunn, John R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives: Mpox surveillance was integral during the 2022 outbreak response. We evaluated implementation of mpox surveillance in Tennessee during an outbreak response and made recommendations for surveillance during emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Methods: To understand surveillance implementation, system processes, and areas for improvement, we conducted 8 semistructured focus groups and 7 interviews with 36 health care, laboratory, and health department representatives during September 9-20, 2022. We categorized and analyzed session transcription and notes. We analyzed completeness and timeliness of surveillance data, including 349 orthopoxvirus-positive laboratory reports from commercial, public health, and health system laboratories during July 1–August 31, 2022. Results: Participants described an evolving system and noted that existing informatics platforms inefficiently supported iterations of reporting requirements. Clear communication, standardization of terminology, and shared, adaptable, and user-friendly informatics platforms were prioritized for future emerging infectious disease surveillance systems. Laboratory-reported epidemiologic information was often incomplete; only 55% (191 of 349) of reports included patient address and telephone number. The median time from symptom onset to specimen collection was 5 days (IQR, 3-6 d), from specimen collection to laboratory reporting was 3 days (IQR, 1-4 d), from laboratory reporting to patient interview was 1 day (IQR, 1-3 d), and from symptom onset to patient interview was 9 days (IQR, 7-12 d). Conclusions: Future emerging infectious disease responses would benefit from standardized surveillance approaches that facilitate rapid implementation. Closer collaboration among informatics, laboratory, and clinical partners across jurisdictions and agencies in determining system priorities and designing workflow processes could improve flexibility of the surveillance platform and completeness and timeliness of laboratory reporting. Improved timeliness will facilitate public health response and intervention, thereby mitigating morbidity.
ISSN:0033-3549
1468-2877
1468-2877
DOI:10.1177/00333549231223710