PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate the feasibility of conducting syndromic surveillance in a primary care office using billing data. METHODS: A 1-year study was conducted in a primary care practice; comparison data were obtained from emergency department records of visits by county residents. Within the practice, a computer program converted billing data into de-identified daily summaries of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes by sex and age-group; and a staff member generated daily summaries and e-mailed them to the analysis team. For both the practice and the emergency departments, infection-related syndromes and practice-specific thresholds were calculated using the category 1 syndrome codes and an analytical method based upon the Early Aberration Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: A mean of 253 ICD-9 codes per day was reported. The most frequently recorded syndromes were respiratory illness, gastrointestinal illness, and fever. Syndromes most commonly exceeding the threshold of 2 standard deviations for the practice were lymphadenitis, rash, and fever. Generating a daily summary took 1 to 2 minutes; the program was written by the software vendor for a fee of dollar 1,500. During the 2003-2004 influenza season, trend line patterns of the emergency department visits reflected a pattern consistent with that of the state, whereas the trend line in primary case practice cases was less consistent, reflecting the variation expected in data from a single clinic. Still, spikes of activity that occurred in the practice before the emergency department suggest the practice may have seen patients with influenza earlier. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study showed the feasibility of implementing syndromic surveillance in an office setting at a low cost and with minimal staff effort. Although many implementation issues remain, further development of syndromic surveillance systems should include primary care offices.
PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate the feasibility of conducting syndromic surveillance in a primary care office using billing data. METHODS: A 1-year study was conducted in a primary care practice; comparison data were obtained from emergency department records of visits by county residents. Within the practice, a computer program converted billing data into de-identified daily summaries of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes by sex and age-group; and a staff member generated daily summaries and e-mailed them to the analysis team. For both the practice and the emergency departments, infection-related syndromes and practice-specific thresholds were calculated using the category 1 syndrome codes and an analytical method based upon the Early Aberration Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: A mean of 253 ICD-9 codes per day was reported. The most frequently recorded syndromes were respiratory illness, gastrointestinal illness, and fever. Syndromes most commonly exceeding the threshold of 2 standard deviations for the practice were lymphadenitis, rash, and fever. Generating a daily summary took 1 to 2 minutes; the program was written by the software vendor for a fee of dollar 1,500. During the 2003-2004 influenza season, trend line patterns of the emergency department visits reflected a pattern consistent with that of the state, whereas the trend line in primary case practice cases was less consistent, reflecting the variation expected in data from a single clinic. Still, spikes of activity that occurred in the practice before the emergency department suggest the practice may have seen patients with influenza earlier. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study showed the feasibility of implementing syndromic surveillance in an office setting at a low cost and with minimal staff effort. Although many implementation issues remain, further development of syndromic surveillance systems should include primary care offices.
Authors: Dena M Bravata; Kathryn M McDonald; Wendy M Smith; Chara Rydzak; Herbert Szeto; David L Buckeridge; Corinna Haberland; Douglas K Owens Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joseph Lombardo; Howard Burkom; Eugene Elbert; Steven Magruder; Sheryl Happel Lewis; Wayne Loschen; James Sari; Carol Sniegoski; Richard Wojcik; Julie Pavlin Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Kenneth D Mandl; J Marc Overhage; Michael M Wagner; William B Lober; Paola Sebastiani; Farzad Mostashari; Julie A Pavlin; Per H Gesteland; Tracee Treadwell; Eileen Koski; Lori Hutwagner; David L Buckeridge; Raymond D Aller; Shaun Grannis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-11-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ross Lazarus; Ken Kleinman; Inna Dashevsky; Courtney Adams; Patricia Kludt; Alfred DeMaria; Richard Platt Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: George Rust; Mollie Melbourne; Benedict I Truman; Elvan Daniels; Yvonne Fry-Johnson; Thomas Curtin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Aaron M Orkin; Aamir Bharmal; Jenni Cram; Fiona G Kouyoumdjian; Andrew D Pinto; Ross Upshur Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Min Zhi Tay; Li Wei Ang; Wycliffe Enli Wei; Vernon J M Lee; Yee-Sin Leo; Matthias Paul H S Toh Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.295