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

Abstract #109067

Michelle R. Torok, MPH¹, Pia D.M. MacDonald, PhD, MPH¹, Andrew C. Voetsch, PhD, MPH¹, Amy L. Nelson, PhD, MPH², Martha Salyers, MD, MPH³, and Leslie A. Wolf, PhD⁴. (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, (4) North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, P.O. Box 28047, Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Background: Foodborne disease surveillance is necessary to determine the burden of illness and to identify outbreaks. In North Carolina, surveillance for foodborne illness is accomplished through clinician- and laboratory-based reporting. Methods: In 2004, 108 clinical microbiology laboratories in North Carolina were surveyed using an Internet-based tool to assess their foodborne pathogen testing and reporting practices. Results: The response rate for clinical microbiology laboratories was 39% (42/108). Most laboratories test fecal specimens for Salmonella spp. (98%), Shigella spp. (98%), Campylobacter spp. (95%), shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) (93%), Vibrio spp. (79%), and Yersinia spp. (88%). Seventy-four percent test blood, placental or fecal specimens for Listeria spp. Of the responding laboratories that test for STEC, 60% (22/37) do so routinely. When asked who is legally responsible for reporting pathogens to the health department, 20-22% of respondents correctly identified the shared legal responsibility of clinicians and laboratories. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) of responding laboratories report foodborne specimen data to the health department within 24 hours and most mail their reports to the health department (55%, 21/38). Conclusion: This survey identified several areas for improvement in laboratory-based reporting of foodborne disease in North Carolina. These results suggest an opportunity to encourage testing of STEC and highlight the need to educate laboratorians on the communicable disease reporting process and requirements. Furthermore, in order to identify outbreaks quickly, laboratories should be encouraged to report foodborne pathogens in the state-mandated timeframe and forward isolates to the state public health laboratory for confirmation and subtyping of isolates.

Learning Objectives: Learning objectives

• Identify deficiencies in diagnosis and reporting practices of foodborne disease among clinical laboratories in North Carolina
• Identify three areas for improvement in laboratory-based reporting of foodborne disease in North Carolina
• Discuss why laboratory based reporting of foodborne diseases is important for comprehensive surveillance of foodborne diseases

Keywords: Reporting, Surveillance

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.