Timeliness of electronic laboratory reporting vs. traditional laboratory reporting in Southern Nevada from 1999-2012 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Public Health Reports, 2001
Objective. The authors assessed the completeness of disease reporting from a managed care organization's automated laboratory-based reporting system to the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) via local public health departments. Methods. The authors identified all positive laboratory tests for 1997 from the computerized database of Kaiser Permanente Northern California for seven infections for which there are statutory reporting requirements: Campylobacter jejuni, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium parvum, hepatitis A, Neisseria meningitidis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Salmonella (N = 7,331 reports). Cases were then matched by computer query to records of cases reported to CDHS. To determine why cases were not found in CDHS records, a sample of unmatched cases was searched at two county health departments. Results. Overall, 84.5% (95% CI 83.4, 85.6) of the laboratory reports submitted with accompanying demographic information were successfully matched with cases in the CDHS disease surveillance database. Frequency of matching for specific diseases ranged from 79.4% (95% CI 75.6, 83.3) for N. gonorrhoeae to 88.4% (95% CI 85.3, 91.6) for C. jejuni. Reports were more likely to be matched when the county of residence was the same as the county of the health care facility. At the county level, reasons for failure of cases to be forwarded to CDHS included: errors due to manual data entry, failure to forward information from the county of diagnosis to the county of residence, and incorrect disease coding. Conclusion. Automated laboratory-based reporting is highly effective, but some data are lost with off-line transfer of information. To optimize surveillance accuracy and completeness, reporting at all levels should be done via direct electronic data transfer.
Automatic Electronic Laboratory-Based Reporting of Notifiable Infectious Diseases
Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2002
Electronic laboratory-based reporting, developed by the UPMC Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was evaluated to determine if it could be integrated into the conventional paper-based reporting system. We reviewed reports of 10 infectious diseases from 8 UPMC hospitals that reported to the Allegheny County Health Department in southwestern Pennsylvania during January 1-November 26, 2000. Electronic reports were received a median of 4 days earlier than conventional reports. The completeness of reporting was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66% to 81%) for the electronic laboratory-based reporting and 65% (95% CI 57% to 73%) for the conventional paper-based reporting system (p>0.05). Most reports (88%) missed by electronic laboratory-based reporting were caused by using free text. Automatic reporting was more rapid and as complete as conventional reporting. Using standardized coding and minimizing free text usage will increase the completeness of electronic laboratory-based reporting.
A Comprehensive Laboratory Services Survey of State Public Health Laboratories
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2006
(SPHLs) in order to establish the baseline data necessary for Healthy People 2010 Objective 23-13. This objective aims to measure the increase in the proportion of health agencies that provide or assure access to comprehensive laboratory services to support essential public health services. This assessment addressed only SPHLs and served as a baseline to periodically evaluate the level of improvement in the provision of laboratory services over the decade ending 2010. The 2004 survey used selected questions that were identified as key indicators of provision of comprehensive laboratory services. The survey was developed in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, based on newly developed data sources. Forty-seven states and one territory responded to the survey. The survey was based on the 11 core functions of SPHLs as previously defined by APHL. The range of performance among individual laboratories for the 11 core functions (subobjectives) reflects the challenging issues that have confronted SPHLs in the first half of this decade. APHL is now working on a coordinated effort with other stakeholders to create seamless state and national systems for the provision of laboratory services in support of public health programs. These services are necessary to help face the threats raised by the specter of terrorism, emerging infections, and natural disasters.
Laboratory services in support of public health: a status report
Public Health …, 2010
Objectives. To assess Healthy People 2010 Objective 23-13 and its related sub-objectives measuring comprehensive laboratory services in support of essential public health programs, the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) collaborated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create and administer a survey of state public health laboratories (PHLs). Methods. A committee of APHL, with representation from CDC, constructed the survey based on the 11 Core Functions of State Public Health Laboratories (hereafter, Core Functions)-the premise being that the extent to which they fulfilled these Core Functions would represent their level of providing or assuring comprehensive laboratory services in support of public health. The survey was distributed biennially to all state health agencies from 2004 to 2008, and respondents were given two months to complete it. Results. The response rate for all surveys was 90.2%. State PHLs were more likely to meet the sub-objectives relating to traditional functions (e.g., disease surveillance and reference testing) than other areas (e.g., food safety and environmental testing). Emergency preparedness fell in between. Overall, but most notably in the areas of food safety and training and education, there was improvement from 2006 to 2008, with the percentage of respondents who met more than half of the sub-objectives increasing from 58.7% in 2006 to 61.2% in 2008. Conclusions. The comprehensive laboratory services survey has been a valuable tool in measuring the laboratory infrastructure that underpins public health in the U.S. It will be necessary to continue monitoring laboratory infrastructure in this way to determine where the gaps in services exist and how they can best be addressed.
Journal of The American Medical Informatics Association, 2011
Objective To evaluate the time to communicate laboratory results to health centers (HCs) between the e-Chasqui web-based information system and the pre-existing paper-based system. Methods Cluster randomized controlled trial in 78 HCs in Peru. In the intervention group, 12 HCs had web access to results via e-Chasqui (point-of-care HCs) and forwarded results to 17 peripheral HCs. In the control group, 22 point-of-care HCs received paper results directly and forwarded them to 27 peripheral HCs. Baseline data were collected for 15 months. Post-randomization data were collected for at least 2 years. Comparisons were made between intervention and control groups, stratified by point-of-care versus peripheral HCs.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2009
A b s t r a c t Electronic laboratory interfaces can significantly increase the value of ambulatory electronic health record (EHR) systems by providing laboratory result data automatically and in a computable form. However, many ambulatory EHRs cannot implement electronic laboratory interfaces despite the existence of messaging standards, such as Health Level 7, version 2 (HL7). Among several barriers to implementing laboratory interfaces is the extensive optionality within the HL7 message standard. This paper describes the rationale for and development of an HL7 implementation guide that seeks to eliminate most of the optionality inherent in HL7, but retain the information content required for reporting outpatient laboratory results. A work group of heterogeneous stakeholders developed the implementation guide based on a set of design principles that emphasized parsimony, practical requirements, and near-term adoption. The resulting implementation guide contains 93% fewer optional data elements than HL7. This guide was successfully implemented by 15 organizations during an initial testing phase and has been approved by the HL7 standards body as an implementation guide for outpatient laboratory reporting. Further testing is required to determine whether widespread adoption of the implementation guide by laboratories and EHR systems can facilitate the implementation of electronic laboratory interfaces.
2020
BACKGROUND Public health reporting is the cornerstone of public health practices that inform prevention and control strategies. There is a need to leverage advances made in the past to implement an architecture that facilitates the timely and complete public health reporting of relevant case-related information that has previously not easily been available to the public health community. Electronic laboratory reporting (ELR) is a reliable method for reporting cases to public health authorities but contains very limited data. In an earlier pilot study, we designed the Public Health Automated Case Event Reporting (PACER) platform, which leverages existing ELR infrastructure as the trigger for creating an electronic case report. PACER is a FHIR (Fast Health Interoperability Resources)-based system that queries the electronic health record from where the laboratory test was requested to extract expanded additional information about a case. OBJECTIVE This study aims to analyze the pilot ...