Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #109202

Pia D.M. MacDonald, PhD, MPH¹, Michelle R. Torok, MPH¹, Amy L. Nelson, PhD, MPH², and Martha Salyers, MD, MPH³. (1) Department of Epidemiology / North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 8165, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8165, (2) North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 8165, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8165, 919-843-5561, apickard@email.unc.edu, (3) Public Health Regional Surveillance Team Six, 35 Woodfin St, Asheville, NC 28801

Background: Public health preparedness concerns put emphasis on disease reporting. We sought to understand knowledge and practice of required reporting by healthcare workers (HCW) and clinical laboratorians, and optional reporting by infection control practitioners (ICP), in western North Carolina. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to study participants to assess knowledge and diagnostic practices concerning Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia entercolitica. Results: 319 HCW, 11 ICP, and 48 laboratorians responded, for a 22%, 52%, and 44% response rate, respectively. Few (<20%) knew both the clinician and the laboratorian were legally responsible for reporting the study pathogens. 25-30% of HCW did not know who was responsible for reporting each of the pathogens. 64% of HCW reported that patient caregivers completed the state disease-reporting card; 15% did not know who completed it; and 9% reported that the ICP completed it. Among ICP, 73% reported they were responsible for completing the card, and 91% noted at least one case of acute diarrheal illness had been reported to them in the last year. Most laboratorians identified the ICP (57%) or microbiologist (38%) as responsible for reporting notifiable diseases. Conclusions: This study identified deficiencies in knowledge and reporting of notifiable foodborne diseases. The results indicate that infection control practitioners play a significant role in reporting diseases, though they are not legally responsible. Dissemination of information and training through the established network of North Carolina infection control practitioners may be ideal for improving foodborne disease surveillance in this state.

Learning Objectives: Learning objectives

• Describe knowledge of required reporting by healthcare workers and clinical laboratorians, and optional reporting by infection control practitioners, in western North Carolina
• Describe practice of required reporting by healthcare workers and clinical laboratorians, and optional reporting by infection control practitioners, in western North Carolina
• Identify deficiencies in knowledge and reporting of notifiable foodborne diseases in western North Carolina

Keywords: Reporting, Practice

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.