Volume 15, Number 8—August 2009
Policy Review
Strategy to Enhance Influenza Surveillance Worldwide1
Justin R. Ortiz, Viviana Sotomayor, Osvaldo C. Uez, Otavio Oliva, Deborah Bettels, Margaret McCarron, Joseph S. Bresee, and Anthony W. Mounts
Table 3
Influenza surveillance evaluation and recommended quality indicators*
| 1. Timeliness |
|---|
| a. Several time intervals are appropriate for routine measurement as quality indicators. These include the duration of time from |
| i. Target date for data reporting from the sentinel site to the next administrative level until the actual reporting date |
| ii. Target date for data reporting from the next administrative level to the national level until the actual reporting date |
| iii. Date of specimen collection at facility until shipment to laboratory |
| iv. Date of result availability in laboratory until date of report to referring institution and physician |
| v. Date of receipt of specimen in the laboratory until result availability |
| b. Metrics. Two metrics can be used to reflect timeliness indicators: |
| i. Percentage of time that a site achieves target for timeliness |
| ii. Average number of days for each interval over time for
each site |
| 2. Completeness |
| a. Percentage of reports received from each site with complete data |
| b. Percentage of data reports that are received |
| c. Percentage of reported cases that have specimens
collected |
| 3. Audit. Regular field evaluations and audits at facility level of a subset of medical records to ensure |
| a. Cases are being counted appropriately and not being underreported |
| b. Reported cases fit the case definition |
| c. Epidemiologic data are correctly and accurately abstracted |
| d. Respiratory samples are being taken, stored, processed, tested, and shipped properly and in a timely fashion from all those who meet sampling criteria |
| e. Sampling procedures are being done uniformly without
evidence of bias |
| 4. Data to be followed and observed for aberrations over time |
| a. Number of cases reported by month for each site |
| b. Number of specimens submitted by month for each site |
| c. Percentage of specimens that are positive for influenza |
| d. Number and percent of ILI and SARI cases tested |
*ILI, influenza-like illness; SARI, severe acute respiratory illness.
1A prior version of this protocol was presented in poster form at the Options for the Control of Influenza Conference in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 17, 2007.
Page created: September 30, 2010
Page updated: September 30, 2010
Page reviewed: September 30, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.