1932

Abstract

Public health surveillance conducted by health departments in the United States has improved in completeness and timeliness owing to electronic laboratory reporting. However, the collection of detailed clinical information about reported cases, which is necessary to confirm the diagnosis, to understand transmission, or to determine disease-related risk factors, is still heavily dependent on manual processes. The increasing prevalence and functionality of electronic health record (EHR) systems in the United States present important opportunities to advance public health surveillance. EHR data have the potential to further increase the breadth, detail, timeliness, and completeness of public health surveillance and thereby provide better data to guide public health interventions. EHRs also provide a unique opportunity to expand the role and vision of current surveillance efforts and to help bridge the gap between public health practice and clinical medicine.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122747
2015-03-18
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/publhealth/36/1/annurev-publhealth-031914-122747.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122747&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allen-Dicker J, Klompas M. 1.  2012. Comparison of electronic laboratory reports, administrative claims, and electronic health record data for acute viral hepatitis surveillance. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 18:3209–14 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. ASTHO (Assoc. State Territ. Health Off.) 2011. Meaningful use readiness survey ASTHO, Arlington, VA. http://www.astho.org/programs/e-health/meaningful-use-readiness-survey/
  3. Blumenthal D. 3.  2010. Launching HITECH. N. Engl. J. Med. 362:5382–85 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. 4.  2010. The ‘meaningful use’ regulation for electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N. Engl. J. Med. 363:6501–4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Booth HP, Prevost AT, Gulliford MC. 5.  2013. Validity of smoking prevalence estimates from primary care electronic health records compared with national population survey data for England, 2007 to 2011. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 22:121357–61 [Google Scholar]
  6. Calderwood MS, Platt R, Hou X, Malenfant J, Haney G. 6.  et al. 2010. Real-time surveillance for tuberculosis using electronic health record data from an ambulatory practice in eastern Massachusetts. Public Health Rep. 125:6843–50 [Google Scholar]
  7. Calman N, Hauser D, Lurio J, Wu WY, Pichardo M. 7.  2012. Strengthening public health and primary care collaboration through electronic health records. Am. J. Public Health 102:11e13–18 [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 1996. Historical perspectives notifiable disease surveillance and notifiable disease statistics—United States, June 1946 and June 1996. MMWR 45:25530–36 [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2008. Automated detection and reporting of notifiable diseases using electronic medical records versus passive surveillance—Massachusetts, June 2006–July 2007. MMWR 57:14373–76 [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2013. Case definitions for notifiable disease surveillance Updated Dec. 10. CDC, Atlanta. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/script/casedefDefault.aspx
  11. 11. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2014. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Updated Sept. 29. CDC, Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/
  12. 12. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2014. Meaningful use Updated Sept. 16. CDC, Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/ehrmeaningfuluse/
  13. 13. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2014. Overview of influenza surveillance Updated Oct. 6. CDC, Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/overview.htm
  14. 14. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.) 2014. Prevention and Public Health Fund Updated Feb. 11. CDC, Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/PPHF/
  15. Chiolero A, Santschi V, Paccaud F. 15.  2013. Public health surveillance with electronic medical records: at risk of surveillance bias and overdiagnosis. Eur. J. Public Health 23:3350–51 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chute CG, Koo D. 16.  2002. Public health, data standards, and vocabulary: crucial infrastructure for reliable public health surveillance. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 8:311–17 [Google Scholar]
  17. D'Amore JD, Sittig DF, Ness RB. 17.  2012. How the continuity of care document can advance medical research and public health. Am. J. Public Health 102:5e1–4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Effler P, Ching-Lee M, Bogard A, Ieong MC, Nekomoto T, Jernigan D. 18.  1999. Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. JAMA 282:191845–50 [Google Scholar]
  19. Elliott AF, Davidson A, Lum F, Chiang MF, Saaddine JB. 19.  et al. 2012. Use of electronic health records and administrative data for public health surveillance of eye health and vision-related conditions in the United States. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 154:6 Suppl.S63–70 [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. GNU Operat. Syst 1991. GNU Library General Public License. Version 2.0, June. Free Software Found., Boston. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/library.html
  21. German RR, Lee LM, Horan JM, Milstein RC, Pertowski CA. 21.  et al. 2001. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. Recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. MMWR 50:RR-131–35 [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. HITPC Meaningful Use Workgr 2014. Meaningful Use stage 3 recommendations Updated March 11. Off. Natl. Coord. Health Inf. Technol., Washington, DC. http://www.healthit.gov/FACAS/sites/faca/files/hitpc_muwg_stage3_recs_2014_03_11.pdf
  23. Hripcsak G, Soulakis ND, Li L, Morrison FP, Lai AM. 23.  et al. 2009. Syndromic surveillance using ambulatory electronic health records. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 16:354–61 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hsiao CJ, Hing E. 24.  2012. Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001–2012 NCHS Data Brief. Updated Dec. 6, CDC, Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db111.htm
  25. 25. IOM (Inst. Med.) 2012. Primary Care and Public Health: Exploring Integration to Improve Population Health Washington, DC: IOM, Natl. Acad.
  26. 26. IOM (Inst. Med.) 2014. Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains on Electronic Health Records: Summary of Selected Domains Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci http://www.iom.edu/∼/media/Files/Report%20Files/2014/EHR-Phase-1/EHRdomains.pdf
  27. 27. ISDS (Int. Soc. Dis. Surveill.) 2012. Electronic Syndromic Surveillance Using Hospital Inpatient and Ambulatory Clinical Care Electronic Health Record Data. Recommendations from the ISDS Meaningful Use Workgroup Brighton, MA: ISDS http://www.syndromic.org/storage/ISDS_2012-MUse-Recommendations.pdf
  28. Klompas M, Eggleston E, McVetta J, Lazarus R, Li L, Platt R. 28.  2013. Automated detection and classification of type 1 versus type 2 diabetes using electronic health record data. Diabetes Care 36:4914–21 [Google Scholar]
  29. Klompas M, McVetta J, Lazarus R, Eggleston E, Haney G. 29.  et al. 2012. Integrating clinical practice and public health surveillance using electronic medical record systems. Am. J. Public Health 102:S3S325–32 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kukafka R, Ancker JS, Chan C, Chelico J, Khan S. 30.  et al. 2007. Redesigning electronic health record systems to support public health. J. Biomed. Inf. 40:4398–409 [Google Scholar]
  31. Langmuir AD. 31.  1963. The surveillance of communicable diseases of national importance. N. Engl. J. Med. 268:182–92 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lazarus R, Klompas M, Campion FX, McNabb SJ, Hou X. 32.  et al. 2009. Electronic support for public health: validated case finding and reporting for notifiable diseases using electronic medical data. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 16:118–24 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee LM, Teutsch SM, Thacker SB, St. Louis ME. 33.  2010. Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 3rd ed..
  34. Lenert L, Sundwall DN. 34.  2012. Public health surveillance and meaningful use regulations: a crisis of opportunity. Am. J. Public Health 102:3e1–7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Loonsk JW, McGarvey SR, Conn LA, Johnson J. 35.  2006. The Public Health Information Network (PHIN) preparedness initiative. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 13:1–4 [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. OPHSS (Off. Public Health Sci. Serv.) 2014. Summary of public health objectives in stage 2 Meaningful Use - ONC and CMS final rules Updated April 1. OPHSS, Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/ehrmeaningfuluse/Docs/Summary%20of%20PH%20Objectives%20in%20Stage%202%20MU%20ONC%20and%20CMS%20Final%20Rules_04_01_2014.pdf
  37. Overhage JM, Grannis S, McDonald DJ. 37.  2008. A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. Am. J. Public Health 98:2344–50 [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Found.) 2013. Health Information Technology in the United States: Better Information Systems for Better Care, 2013 Princeton, NJ: RWJF http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2013/07/health-information-technology-in-the-united-states-2013.html
  39. Silk BJ, Berkelman RL. 39.  2005. A review of strategies for enhancing the completeness of notifiable disease reporting. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 11:3191–200 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sosin DM, Hopkins RS. 40.  2010. Public health surveillance for preparedness and emergency response: biosurveillance for human health. See Ref. 33 306–20
  41. Thacker SB. 41.  2010. Historical development. See Ref. 33 1–17
  42. Tomasallo CD, Hanrahan LP, Tandias A, Chang TS, Cowan KJ, Guilbert TW. 42.  2014. Estimating Wisconsin asthma prevalence using clinical electronic health records and public health data. Am. J. Public Health 104:1e65–73 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vogel J, Brown JS, Platt R, Land T, Klompas M. 43.  2014. MDPHnet: secure, distributed sharing of electronic health record data for public health surveillance, evaluation, and planning. Am. J. Public Health 1042265–70
  44. Yih CW. 44.  et al. 2014. Automated influenza-like illness reporting—an efficient adjunct to traditional sentinel surveillance. Public Health Rep. 129:55–63 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122747
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error