|
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
Biosecurity Briefing
Study Finds Electronic Information Improves Disease Reporting by Clinicians By Jennifer Nuzzo, January 18, 2008 A study published in the January/February issue of the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice finds that physicians may be “significantly” more likely to report notifiable diseases to public health agencies if they are given electronic disease reporting instructions and email reminders of how/where to report notifiable diseases.1 A ScienceDaily article quotes the study’s lead author, Lawrence Ward: “currently, few physicians report diseases to public health authorities. They either don’t know the methods for reporting, or the specific conditions that are required by law to be reported. Public health officials also do not adequately communicate the vitally important role played by practicing physicians, as frontline agents of public health, in the identification of new disease patterns and the importance of prompt reporting.”2 To investigate ways to improve disease reporting rates among clinicians, the study team conducted a “nonrandomized controlled trial” among of two groups of hospital-based clinicians in Philadelphia County.1 Clinicians in the intervention group belonged to five non-randomly selected hospitals that were “directly or indirectly affiliated with the same public health system.”1 The control group was made up of 23 other hospitals in the county. Clinicians and hospital epidemiologists in the 5 intervention hospitals were subjected to “three electronic media components intended to improve the awareness and facilitate [notifiable disease] reporting by clinicians.”1 These consisted of:
To evaluate the effect of the electronic media intervention, the study team compared the disease reporting patterns of the control and intervention groups during a 24-week intervention period (January to July 2005) and a 24-week baseline period (January to July 2004). Specifically, the investigators compared “the total number of spontaneous reports of selected reportable diseases to the PDPH from each study hospital.” The conditions chosen for inclusion in the study (“animal bites, encephalitis, meningitis, Lyme disease, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and pertussis”) were those that were: 1) “not exceedingly rare in Philadelphia for the last 5 years;” 2) “typically non-laboratory-based diagnoses;” or 3) “diseases for which a clinical diagnosis or strong suspicion of the diagnosis may be established before a laboratory result.”1 During the intervention, conditions were reported by methods usually used to submit reports to the PDPH (telephone, fax, or electronically, using Pennsylvania’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System).1 The study concludes that the “electronic information-based intervention led to a significant increase in clinician reporting of reportable diseases.”1 In light of the “ease and low cost of implanting such programs,” the investigators conclude that “they are an attractive method for increasing clinician reporting of public health conditions.”1 References
|