Abstract
Context: Syndromic surveillance consists of the systematic collection and use of near real-time data about health-related events for situational awareness and public health action. As syndromic surveillance programs continue to adopt new technologies and expand, it is valuable to evaluate these syndromic surveillance systems and practices to ensure that they meet public health needs.
Objective: This assessment's aim is to provide recent information about syndromic surveillance systems and practice characteristics among a group of state and local health departments.
Design/Setting: Information was obtained between November 2017 and June 2018 through a telephone survey using an Office of Management and Budget-approved standardized data collection tool. Participants were syndromic surveillance staff from each of 31 state and local health departments participating in the National Syndromic Surveillance Program funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Questions included jurisdictional experience, data sources and analysis systems used, syndromic system data processing characteristics, data quality verification procedures, and surveillance activities conducted with syndromic data.
Measures: Practice-specific information such as types of systems and data sources used for syndromic surveillance, data quality monitoring, and uses of data for public health situational awareness (eg, investigating occurrences of or trends in diseases).
Results: The survey analysis revealed a wide range of experiences with syndromic surveillance. Participants reported the receipt of data daily or more frequently. Emergency department data were the primary data source; however, other data sources are being integrated into these systems. All health departments routinely monitored data quality. Syndromes of highest priority across the respondents for health events monitoring were influenza-like illness and drug-related syndromes. However, a wide variety of syndromes were reported as priorities across the health departments.
Conclusion: Overall, syndromic surveillance was relevantly integrated into the public health surveillance infrastructure. The near real-time nature of the data and its flexibility to monitor different types of health-related issues make it especially useful for public health practitioners. Despite these advances, syndromic surveillance capacity, locally and nationally, must continue to evolve and progress should be monitored to ensure that syndromic surveillance systems and data are optimally able to meet jurisdictional needs.