scholarly journals Strengthening Health Surveillance through the Development of Interagency Relationships

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily V. Glidden ◽  
Royal Law
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Health Surveillance ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Agency Collaborations

Objective- To discuss the development of a set of tools for interagency collaborations on health surveillance- To determine the core contents of the tools based on known gaps in health surveillance- To determine collaborators in development and timelines for completionIntroductionIn 2010, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) identified data collected by poison centers (PCs) as an important tool for all-hazards exposure and illness surveillance. In response to this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CSTE, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) members created the Poison Center Public Health Community of Practice (CoP). The CoP acts as a platform, to facilitate sharing experiences, identify best practices, and develop relationships among federal agencies, state and local health departments (HD), and PCs. Since its inception, the CoP garnered over 250 members, hosted more than 25 webinars regarding PC-HD collaborations, and produced five newsletters highlighting subjects pertinent to PC and HD personnel.DescriptionFindings and lessons learned from activities outlined in the introduction include the need for: 1) standardized inter-agency communication, 2) increased knowledge and utilization of state reporting and monitoring systems, and 3) inter-agency collaborations to prevent the duplication of efforts. In this roundtable, we will: 1) discuss how to develop information and tools for inter-agency public health communication and messaging, 2) identify key stakeholders including potential national, state, and local agencies who can help bolster communication messaging, and 3) develop appropriate points of contact within these agencies. Potential components of the guidance may include: 1) a comprehensive list of state resources available to PC and PH personnel, 2) recommended inter-agency points of contact, 3) lessons learned from collaborative projects, and 4) PC abilities to share and analyze data for public health practice and health surveillance.How the Moderator Intends to Engage the Audience in Discussions on the TopicThis roundtable session will consider the following questions:- Which agencies--local, state, national, or otherwise-- would benefit from inter-agency collaborations health surveillance efforts?- What should the proposed tools include? Who should be involved in developing the proposed materials?Following this roundtable, the CoP hopes to have tangible next steps in creating inter-agency collaborations health surveillance guidance and establish a timeline for completion. 

scholarly journals Development of Indicators for Public Health Surveillance of Substance Use and Mental Health

2018 ◽  
Vol 133 (5) ◽  
pp. 523-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Hopkins ◽  
Michael Landen ◽  
Megan Toe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Mental Health ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Public Health Surveillance ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Surveillance ◽  
Local Health ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Council Of State

Substance use and mental health disorders can result in disability, death, and economic cost. In the United States, rates of death from suicide, drug overdose, and chronic liver disease (a marker for alcohol abuse) have been rising for the past 15 years. Good public health surveillance for these disorders, their consequences, and their risk factors is crucially important for their prevention and control, but surveillance has not been conducted consistently in the states. In 2015, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists convened a workgroup to develop a set of uniformly defined surveillance indicators that could be used by state and local health departments to monitor these disorders and to compare their occurrence in various jurisdictions. This report briefly describes the indicators and outlines the process used to develop them.

scholarly journals Poison center data for public health surveillance: Poison center and public health perspectives

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Glidden ◽  
Laurel Boyd ◽  
Jay Schauben ◽  
Prakash R. Mulay ◽  
Royal Law
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Health Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
Clinical Toxicology ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Information Center ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Local Ph

ObjectiveTo discuss the use of poison center (PC) data for public health (PH) surveillance at the local, state, and federal levels. To generate meaningful discussion on how to facilitate greater PC and PH collaboration.IntroductionSince 2008, poisoning is the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States; since 1980, the poisoning-related fatality rate in the United States (U.S.) has almost tripled1. Many poison-related injuries and deaths are reported to regional PCs which receive about 2.4 million reports of human chemical and poison exposures annually2. Federal, state, and local PH agencies often collaborate with PCs and use PC data for PH surveillance to identify poisoning-related health issues. Many state and local PH agencies have partnerships with regional PCs for direct access to local PC data which help them perform this function. At the national level, the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducts PH surveillance for exposures and illnesses of PH significance using the National Poison Data System (NPDS), the national PC reporting database and real-time surveillance system.Though most PC and PH officials agree that PC data play an important role in PH practice and surveillance, collaboration between PH agencies and PCs can be hindered by numerous challenges. To address these challenges and bolster collaboration, the PC and PH Collaborations Community of Practice (CoP) has collaborated with members to provide educational webinars; newsletters highlighting the intersection of PH and PC work; and in-person meetings at relevant national and international conferences. The CoP includes over 200 members from state and local PH departments, regional PCs, CDC, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).DescriptionThe panel will consist of 3 presenters and 1 moderator, who are members of the CoP. Each presenter will bring a unique perspective on the use of PC data for PH practice and surveillance. Dr. Prakash Mulay is the surveillance coordinator for chemical related illnesses and injuries in Florida. His primary focus is on carbon monoxide, pesticide, mercury, and arsenic poisoning. He also works as a liaison between the Florida Poison Information Centers and Department of Health. Dr. Mulay has a Medical Degree from India and a Masters of Public Health (MPH) in epidemiology from Florida International University, Miami. For the purpose of the panel discussion, Dr. Mulay will provide PC PH collaboration from the state perspective.Dr. Jay Schauben is the Director of the Florida/United States Virgin Islands Poison Information Center in Jacksonville, the Florida Poison Information Center Network Data Center, and the Clinical Toxicology Fellowship Program at University of Florida Health-Jacksonville Medical Center/University of Florida Health Science Center. He is board-certified in clinical toxicology and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology. In 1992, Dr. Schauben implemented the Florida Poison Information Center in Jacksonville and played a major role in crafting the Statewide Florida Poison Information Center Network. On the panel, Dr. Schauben will provide collaboration insight from the PC perspective.Dr. Royal Law is the surveillance and technical lead for the National Chemical and Radiological Surveillance Program, housed within the Health Studies Branch at the CDC. He received his PhD in Public Health from Georgia State University and his MPH at Emory University. Dr. Law will provide insight from the national level including CDC use of PC data for public health surveillance activities.How The Moderator Intends to Engage the AudienceAfter the panel members have been introduced and shared their contributions and experiences with PC PH collaboration the moderator will engage the audience by facilitating discussion of the successes and challenges to using PC data for PH practice and surveillance.Sample questions:What are your current capacities and collaborative activities between your state/local health department and your PC?What non-funding related barriers hinder the collaboration between your state/local health department and PC?If no increase in funding were available, how would you increase the level of interactivity with the PC and state/local health department? What if funding was available?References1Warner M, Chen LH, Makuc DM, Anderson RN, and Minino AM. Drug Poisoning Deaths in the United States, 1980–2008. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, December 2011. Accessed 8/29/2012.2Mowry JB, Spyker DA, Brooks DE, Zimmerman A, Schauben JL (2016) 2015 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data Systems (NPDS): 33rd Annual Report, Clinical Toxicology, 54:10, 924-1109.  

scholarly journals Evaluation Activities from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Romano ◽  
Cassandra Davis ◽  
Krystal Collier ◽  
Sara Johnston ◽  
Hana Tesfamichael ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Syndromic Surveillance ◽  
Situational Awareness ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Surveillance Data ◽  
Acceptance Testing ◽  
Surveillance Program ◽  
Local Health ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Surveillance Practice

ObjectiveThe objective of this session is to discuss syndromic surveillance evaluation activities. Panel participants will describe contexts and importance of selected evaluation and performance measurement activities in NSSP. Discussions will explore ways to strengthen evaluation in syndromic surveillance activities in the future.IntroductionSyndromic surveillance uses near-real-time Emergency Department healthcare and other data to improve situational awareness and inform activities implemented in response to public health concerns. The National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) is a collaboration among state and local health departments, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), other federal organizations, and other entities, to strengthen the means for and the practice of syndromic surveillance. NSSP thus strives to strengthen syndromic surveillance at the national and the state, and local levels through the coordinated activities of the involved partners and the development and use of advanced technologies, such as the BioSense platform. Evaluation and performance measurement are crucial to ensure that the various strategies and activities implemented to strengthen syndromic surveillance capacity and practice are effective. Evaluation activities will be discussed at this session and feedback from audience will be sought with the goal to further strengthen evaluation activities in the future.DescriptionSyndromic surveillance practice among NSSP grant recipients: findings from a telephone based survey – S. Romano This presentation will highlight the development and implementation of a survey among the NSSP grant recipients about their syndromic surveillance practice. The objectives of the survey was to develop knowledge and understanding about: a) characteristics of syndromic surveillance practice at the state and local level among jurisdictions that are NSSP grant recipients; b) challenges encountered by these jurisdictions in conducting syndromic surveillance; and c) strategies that may help address these challenges. The objectives and methods of the survey will be described in detail. The survey is expected to be implemented before the end of this year. Preliminary findings will be presented if available. Lessons learned and strategies to consider for strengthening syndromic surveillance practice will be discussed.Defining a sustainable approach to syndromic surveillance through the AZ BioSense Workgroup Charter – K. Collier, S. Johnston The Arizona BioSense Workgroup has developed a five year charter outlining the method and measures used for implementation and adoption of syndromic surveillance in Arizona. Membership consists of clinicians, IT and public health. The mission and vision help to establish a foundation for building capacity and quality of the syndromic surveillance data, improved population health and emergency response through timely and effective use of the data. Cross-cutting topics resulted in a process for assessing training needs, establishing protocols and evaluation of use cases, shared plans for situational awareness and making public health decisions. This talk will discuss the collaborative approach and how lessons learned will inform future activities.User Acceptance Testing to inform development and enhancement of the BioSense Platform – C. Davis Between June, 2016 and January, 2017, NSSP operationalized an updated BioSense Platform for conducting syndromic surveillance. The platform included ESSENCE, a software that enables analysis and visualization of syndromic surveillance data and the Access Management Center, a tool that enables jurisdictions to manage access to data. The development of and transition to the updated platform was informed by a User Acceptance Testing (UAT) that examined the functionality and usability of the platform and associated tools After webinar based orientation UAT, participants were requested to carry out specific tasks using the updated platform and tools in development. This presentation will discuss the objectives and methods of implementation of the UAT, findings from the UAT, and how these guided transition activities and the refinement of the platform applications.A quantitative and qualitative assessment of user support provided by the NSSP Service Desk – H. Tesfamichael, S. Romano A principal component of NSSP is the BioSense platform that includes health care visits related information, particularly related to emergency department visits, from across the U.S. BioSense and its associated tools, including ESSENCE, the Access Management Center, and Adminer, enable state and local health departments, and other, as appropriate, to use syndromic surveillance data to implement surveillance and assessment activities. The NSSP Service Desk provides technical support to BioSense users to assist with the use of the BioSense platform and its tools Users submit support request tickets through an online application. An analysis of information related to these tickets, including the context of the requests and their resolution status, was conducted to better understand the support needs of users and how well these were being addressed. This presentation will discuss the assessment, findings, and conclusions.How the Moderator Intends to Engage the Audience in Discussions on the TopicThe moderator will introduce the session and the panelists. The moderator will also invite questions and comments from the audience, and will facilitate the discussions. 

Health Information Privacy and Public Health

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. Hodge
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Authorities ◽  
Public Health Functions ◽  
State And Local

Protecting the privacy of individually-identifiable health data and promoting the public’s health often seem at odds. Privacy advocates consistently seek to limit the acquisition, use, and disclosure of identifiable health information in governmental and private sector settings. Their concerns relate to misuses or wrongful disclosures of sensitive health data that can lead to discrimination and stigmatization against individuals. Public health practitioners, on the other hand, seek regular, ongoing access to and use of identifiable health information to accomplish important public health objectives. The collection and use of identifiable health data by federal, tribal, state, and local health authorities support nearly all public health functions and goals.Identifiable health data are the lifeblood of public health practice. When aggregated, these data help authorities monitor the incidence, patterns, and trends of injury and disease in populations. Health data are acquired by public health authorities through testing, screening, and treatment programs.

scholarly journals Identifying Incidents of Public Health Significance Using the National Poison Data System, 2013–2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (10) ◽  
pp. 1528-1531
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Carpenter ◽  
Arthur S. Chang ◽  
Alvin C. Bronstein ◽  
Richard G. Thomas ◽  
Royal K. Law
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data System ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Public Health Department ◽  
National Poison ◽  
Public Health Significance ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
Health Significance ◽  
National Poison Data System

Data System. The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) jointly monitor the National Poison Data System (NPDS) for incidents of public health significance (IPHSs). Data Collection/Processing. NPDS is the data repository for US poison centers, which together cover all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and multiple territories. Information from calls to poison centers is uploaded to NPDS in near real time and continuously monitored for specific exposures and anomalies relative to historic data. Data Analysis/Dissemination. AAPCC and CDC toxicologists analyze NPDS-generated anomalies for evidence of public health significance. Presumptive results are confirmed with the receiving poison center to correctly identify IPHSs. Once verified, CDC notifies the state public health department. Implications. During 2013 to 2018, 3.7% of all NPDS-generated anomalies represented IPHSs. NPDS surveillance findings may be the first alert to state epidemiologists of IPHSs. Data are used locally and nationally to enhance situational awareness during a suspected or known public health threat. NPDS improves CDC’s national surveillance capacity by identifying early markers of IPHSs.

Toolkit for Epidemiologic Response to an Acute Chemical Release

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 631-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Anne Duncan ◽  
Maureen F. Orr
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Toxic Substances ◽  
Public Health Action ◽  
Public Health Agencies ◽  
Chemical Release ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Many

AbstractWhen a large chemical incident occurs and people are injured, public health agencies need to be able to provide guidance and respond to questions from the public, the media, and public officials. Because of this urgent need for information to support appropriate public health action, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the US Department of Health and Human Services has developed the Assessment of Chemical Exposures (ACE) Toolkit. The ACE Toolkit, available on the ATSDR website, offers materials including surveys, consent forms, databases, and training materials that state and local health personnel can use to rapidly conduct an epidemiologic investigation after a large-scale acute chemical release. All materials are readily adaptable to the many different chemical incident scenarios that may occur and the data needs of the responding agency. An expert ACE team is available to provide technical assistance on site or remotely. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:631–632)

Poison Centers, Poison Prevention, and the Pediatrician

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick H. Lovejoy ◽  
William O. Robertson ◽  
Alan D. Woolf
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Poison Control ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Household Products ◽  
Prevention Model ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
History Of ◽  
Poison Prevention ◽  
Remarkable Progress

The first poison centers were established in the United States in the early 1950s, stimulated by an American Academy of Pediatrics' survey of office-based pediatric practices which ascertained that its members had no place to turn for ingredient information on medications and household products.1 With the help of the Academy, pediatrician Dr. Edward Press, the Illinois Department of Health, and several community hospitals, the first poison center emerged. Over the subsequent 40 years, remarkable progress has occurred in the fields of clinical toxicology, poison control, and poison prevention. Yet despite these accomplishments, challenging clouds are appearing on the horizon which threaten these gains. This commentary, by the authors who have viewed and participated in a large part of the history of this progress, will focus on these major accomplishments with an emphasis on (a) poison prevention utilizing the pre-event (primary prevention), (b) the event (secondary prevention), and (c) the postevent (tertiary prevention) model.2

Structural Transphobia, Homophobia, and Biphobia in Public Health Practice: The Example of COVID-19 Surveillance

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e7
Author(s):  
Randall L. Sell ◽  
Elise I. Krims
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Public Health Surveillance ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Surveillance ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Public Health Surveillance System

Public health surveillance can have profound impacts on the health of populations, with COVID-19 surveillance offering an illuminating example. Surveillance surrounding COVID-19 testing, confirmed cases, and deaths has provided essential information to public health professionals about how to minimize morbidity and mortality. In the United States, surveillance has also pointed out how populations, on the basis of geography, age, and race and ethnicity, are being impacted disproportionately, allowing targeted intervention and evaluation. However, COVID-19 surveillance has also highlighted how the public health surveillance system fails some communities, including sexual and gender minorities. This failure has come about because of the haphazard and disorganized way disease reporting data are collected, analyzed, and reported in the United States, and the structural homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia acting within these systems. We provide recommendations for addressing these concerns after examining experiences collecting race data in COVID-19 surveillance and attempts in Pennsylvania and California to incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity variables into their pandemic surveillance efforts. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print June 10, 2021: e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.3062727 )

scholarly journals An Academic–Practice Partnership at the University of Washington School of Public Health: The Student Epidemic Action Leaders (SEAL) Team

2018 ◽  
Vol 133 (6) ◽  
pp. 749-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maayan Simckes ◽  
Beth Melius ◽  
Vivian Hawkins ◽  
Scott Lindquist ◽  
Janet Baseman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Public Health Department ◽  
University Of Washington ◽  
Local Public Health ◽  
School Of Public Health ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The University

In 2015, the University of Washington School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology established the Student Epidemic Action Leaders (SEAL) team to provide public health students with experience in field epidemiology in state and local public health communicable disease divisions. The University of Washington Department of Epidemiology developed the SEAL team in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Health to offer public health graduate students opportunities to contribute to the real-time needs of public health agencies during a communicable disease event and/or preparedness event. The SEAL team combines classroom and field-based training in public health practice and applied epidemiology. During the first 2 years of the SEAL team (2016-2018), 34 SEALs were placed at 4 agencies contributing more than 1300 hours of assistance on 24 public health projects.

scholarly journals Public Health Surveillance: Electronic Reporting as a Point of Reference

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (S2) ◽  
pp. 19-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Black ◽  
Rachel Hulkower ◽  
Walter Suarez ◽  
Shreya Patel ◽  
Brandon Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Health Surveillance ◽  
Health Surveillance ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Electronic Reporting ◽  
Reporting Systems ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Point Of Reference

Federal, state, and local laws shape the use of health information for public health purposes, such as the mandated collection of data through electronic disease reporting systems. Health professionals can leverage these data to better anticipate and plan for the needs of communities, which is seen in the use of electronic case reporting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document