Evaluation of Tennessee Foodborne Illness and Outbreak Response Using the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak and Response (CIFOR) Metrics

Similar documents
CIFOR performance measure Measurement methods Target Range Minnesota 2013 Performance 1. Foodborne illness complaint reporting system:

Surveillance and outbreak response are major components

Performance Indicators for Foodborne Disease Programs

APril PUlseNet

Nashville, Tennessee. Assignment Description

E. coli O157:H7 - Multistate Outbreak Associated with Hazelnuts, 2010

Infectious Diseases - Foodborne, Tennessee Department of Health, Communicable and Environmental Disease Services Assignment Description

E. coli O157:H7 - American Chef s Selection Angus Beef Patties, 2007

Foodborne Illness and Outbreak Surveillance in the USA. Alison Samuel, Naghmeh Parto, Emily Peterson

The PulseNet Cost Benefit Study and Beyond: What We Have Learned & Where We Are Headed for Molecular Enteric Surveillance

Investigation of foodborne disease outbreaks

CDC Update Laura G. Brown, Ph.D. National Center for Environmental Health

Outbreak Alert! Trends in Foodborne Illness Outbreaks in the United States ( )

SURVEILLANCE AND DETECTION OF FOODBORNE ILLNESSES

B. Generalized CIFOR Guidelines for implementing foodborne illness complaint systems

Bacterial Enteric Infections Detected by Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests FoodNet, United States,

Meeting the Challenge of Changing Diagnostic Testing Practices and the Impact on Public Health Surveillance

CIFOR GUIDELINES FOR FOODBORNE ILLNESS COMPLAINT SYSTEMS

The power of information to prevent foodborne illness

127,839 hospitalizations. [Jan ].

Table 1: Training Topics that over 50% of respondents identified as important a

Welcome to the PulseNet/OutbreakNet West Coast Regional Meeting

Update on infections with and clinical lab guidelines for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in the United States

3/18/ Update: STEC Diagnosis and Surveillance in Wisconsin. Objectives. Objectives. Shiga toxin-producing Escherchia coli (STEC)

2014 Update: STEC Diagnosis and Surveillance in Wisconsin

How Whole-Genome Sequencing Impacts Outbreak Investigations A Public Health Perspective

Mahoning County Public Health. Epidemiology Response Annex

5/4/2018. Describe the public health surveillance system for communicable diseases.

Welcome to the PulseNet/OutbreakNet East Coast Regional Meeting

MA PHIT- Food Certificate Program

Multistate Foodborne Outbreaks: Investigation and Communication Process

When a Cluster Becomes an Outbreak The Multistate Perspective

INVESTIGATION OF A MULTISTATE OUTBREAK OF SALMONELLA BAREILLY AND SALMONELLA NCHANGA

The Conference for Food Protection Indianapolis, Indiana April 14, 2012 CDC Updat e

Welcome to the PulseNet/OutbreakNet Central Regional Meeting

E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Associated with Consumption of Unpasteurized Milk, Kentucky, 2014

Food Safety Needs Assessment for Epidemiology Officials New York Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence

Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infections After Attendance at a Cider Festival Kansas, 2016

Food Safety Needs Assessment for Environmental Health Officials New York Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence

Position Statement Template

What's for dinner? Current issues in foodborne illness

FOODBORNE OUTBREAK RESPONSE GUIDELINE

Electronic Test Orders and Results (ETOR)

What to do with Sick Food Handlers? Michelle Malavet, MSA, HO, REHS Foodborne Disease Surveillance Coordinator NJDOH, Communicable Disease Service

New Mexico Emerging Infections Program Overview. Joan Baumbach NM Department of Health September 23, 2016

Presented by: Elise B. Smith, B.S., MT(ASCP) Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services

Yersiniosis rev Apr 2017

Outbreak Investigations: The Minnesota Perspective A Dynamic Process

Lessons Learned from an Outbreak: E. coli O157:H7 linked to Romaine Lettuce National Investigation and Communication Process

Evaluation of Foodborne Illness Complaint Surveillance System, Tennessee, 2012

Public Health Risks of Consuming Raw Milk Products - Surveillance and Prevention Efforts in the United States

PulseNet on the High Wire

Laboratory Guidance for Ontario Public Health Inspectors for Foodborne Outbreak Investigations

DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL THE EVENT LEADER TELLS YOU TO!

Understanding the Public Health Significance of Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli. Betsy Booren, Ph.D. Director, Scientific Affairs

the Future Hold? May 30, 2018

Changing Trends in Foodborne and Enteric Zoonotic Outbreaks Colin Basler, DVM, MPH

The Role of USDA s Food Safety and Inspection Service to Ensure Foodborne Disease Control and Prevention

Impact of Culture Independent Diagnostic Tests on Enteric Disease Outbreak Detection and Response: Nebraska,

CIFOR Foodborne Disease Response Guidelines

Infectious Diseases-HAI Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Public Health Boise, Idaho. Assignment Description

Adam Aragon Lisa Onischuk Paul Torres NM DOH, Scientific Laboratory Division

Surveillance Networks and the detection and Investigation of Foodborne Disease Outbreaks What You See is What you Get

Position Statement Template

Public Health Brief. A Newsletter on Current Public Health Topics

Is Whole Genome Sequencing Really Replacing Traditional Microbiology?

Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD/CDC), at

Provincial Foodborne Outbreak Investigations

Annex 7 Model Forms, Guides, and Other Aids

Influenza Virologic Surveillance Right Size Project. Launch July 2013

Foodborne Outbreaks. Rand Carpenter, DVM Tennessee Department of Health

Implementing FSMA: CDC s Surveillance Provisions

USING WGS FOR SURVEILLANCE, CLUSTER DETECTION, AND EPI INVESTIGATIONS IN WASHINGTON Washington State Department of Health

Before development of pathogen-specific surveillance,

Vibrio surveillance in the CIDT Era

What you need to know... Notifiable Diseases/Conditions. Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) Bureau of Communicable Disease - Epidemiology

An outbreak of STEC O26 linked to water

Position Statement Template

International Outbreak of Shigella sonnei Among Airline Passengers Honolulu, Hawaii, 2004

WGS Works! Shared Mission Different Roles APPLICATIONS SEQUENCING (WGS) Non-regulatory. Regulatory CDC. FDA and USDA. Peter Gerner-Smidt, MD ScD

Outbreak Data for Foodborne Illness Source Attribution: From Good to Great

APHL Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Survey

Peter Gerner-Smidt, M.D., D.M.S. Enteric Diseases Laboratory Branch, CDC

Employee Illness Log

JCM Accepts, published online ahead of print on 20 March 2013 J. Clin. Microbiol. doi: /jcm

Introduction. Future U.S. initiatives regarding the food safety for fresh produce. FoodNet Partners. FoodNet Partners

Foodborne Outbreak of E. coli Infections and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome in Germany, 2011

Better Use of IT Could Minimize the Next Salmonella Egg-idemic

APHL-CDC Influenza Cost Estimation Models

Laboratory diagnosis Surveillance and outbreak detection Outbreak investigation

Infectious Diseases New York State Department of Health, Division of Epidemiology, Bureau of Communicable Disease Control

Characteristics of Foodborne Disease Outbreak Investigations Conducted by Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) Sites,

SHIGA-TOXIN PRODUCING ESCHERICHIA COLI STEC Update. Roshan Reporter, MD, MPH Rita Bagby, PS-PHN Leticia Martinez, PS-PHN

USDA s New Shiga Toxin- Producing Escherichia coli Policy. James Hodges Executive Vice President American Meat Institute

Vibrio Infections including Cholera rev Apr 2017

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY. Evan Elliot Henke

Transitioning Public Health Microbiology to Whole Genome Sequencing: Experiences and Plans for Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens

Influenza Surveillance Report Saint Louis County Department of Public Health Week Ending 05/20/2018 Week 20

Module 4: Estimated Annual U.S. Foodborne Disease Burden, 2011 Foodborne Illnesses 48 million Hospitalizations 128,000 Deaths 3,000

CEIP Sentinel. 11 May PulseNet Builds on Success of Listeria Whole Genome Sequencing Project. This issue:

Transcription:

Evaluation of Tennessee Foodborne Illness and Outbreak Response Using the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak and Response (CIFOR) Metrics 12/31/2014 Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence Tennessee Department of Public Health Background The Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR) was established in 2006 to improve methods at the local, state, and national levels to detect, investigate, control, and prevent foodborne disease outbreaks. In 2014, CIFOR released a second edition of their Guidelines for Foodborne Disease Outbreak Detection and Response 1. Chapter 8 of the Guidelines outlines a set of 16 performance indicators intended to assess the effectiveness of surveillance and outbreak response. The standardization of these performance criteria and metrics is intended, among other things, to allow for evaluation of state, regional or national level program effectiveness with the goal of identifying needs for improvement. The CIFOR s Work Group has also developed target ranges based on the relative importance and feasibility of calculating each measure. The target ranges are further categorized as acceptable or preferable, indicating an easily recognized level of achievement for each measure. These performance indicators address a range of public health infrastructure elements including database use, outbreak response, and laboratory performance, which reflect both the short term and long term objectives of foodborne disease surveillance programs. Utilizing the updated guidelines for assessing program performance, the Tennessee Integrated Food Safety Center of Excellence has evaluated Tennessee data to identify strengths and areas in need of improvement with regard to foodborne illness surveillance and outbreak surveillance. Methods To evaluate Tennessee performance on the 16 performance indicators, the following data sources were used: NEDSS The National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS) is a secure online framework that allows healthcare professionals and government agencies to communicate about disease patterns and coordinate national response to outbreaks. National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); designated TDH employees report outbreaks to CDC using NORS. TDH Outbreak Database a Microsoft Excel database used by TDH staff to track and manage outbreaks of enteric diseases. The TDH Outbreak Database contains some different data elements than NORS. 1

Star Laboratory Information Management System (StarLIMS) an Abbott company system used to track and archive all laboratory testing performed at the TDH Public Health Laboratory. CIFOR Cluster Detection Software a freeware package developed by CIFOR, APHL, and private contractors, with input from a variety of public health jurisdictions (e.g., county, regional and state); used to detect clusters of PFGE matched cases. TDH Cluster Database An internal database used by TDH Epidemiologists to track clusters identified by the CIFOR Cluster Detection Tool, CDC PulseNET and surveillance interviews. Data from 1/1/2013 12/31/2013 were analyzed unless otherwise noted. No additional data were collected for the purpose of evaluating the CIFOR performance indicators. Results Table 1 describes the 16 revised CIFOR performance indicators, the target ranges suggested by the CIFOR Metrics Working Group, Tennessee findings, and the target range(s) achieved by Tennessee. Table 1: CIFOR s and, 2013 CIFOR s Findings for Each 1. Foodborne illness complaint reporting system: Electronic database Electronic Database maintained in Microsoft Access Preferable Agency maintains logs or databases for all complaints or referral reports from other sources alleging food related illness, food related injury or intentional food contamination, and routinely reviews data to identify clusters of illnesses requiring investigation. System to log complaints 2. Outbreaks detected from complaints: Number of outbreaks detected as a result of foodborne illness complaints. Rate of outbreaks detected per 1,000 complaints. > 20 outbreaks / 1,000 complaints 10 20 outbreaks/ 1,000 complaints Unable to calculate with available data. Not available 3. Foodborne illness outbreak rate: Number foodborne outbreaks >6 outbreaks / 1,000,000 population 3.85 per 1,000,000 population Acceptable 2

CIFOR s Findings for Each reported, all agents. Rate of outbreaks reported per 1,000,000 population. 1 6 outbreaks / 1,000,000 population 4. Confirmed cases with exposure history obtained: confirmed Salmonella, Shiga toxin producing E.coli (STEC), and Listeria cases with exposure history obtained. 5. Isolate/CIDT positive clinical submissions to Public Health Laboratory: Number and % of isolates from confirmed Salmonella, Shiga toxin producing E.coli (STEC), and Listeria cases and clinical specimens from patients diagnosed by culture independent diagnostic test (CIDT), submitted to PHL. 6. Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) subtyping of isolates: Salmonella, Shiga toxinproducing E. coli (STEC), and Listeria isolates with PFGE information. 7. Isolate/CIDT positive clinical specimen submission interval: Median number of days from collection of clinical specimen to receipt of isolate or clinical specimen from a patient > 75% of cases 50 75% of cases > 75% of cases 50 75% of cases > 90% of cases 60 90% of cases <7 days 7 8 days FoodCORE Results: 69% (598/872) 93% (115/124) 85% (11/13) 83% 762/917 83% (155/187) 87% (13/15) 100% (862/862) 100% (78/78) 100% (14/14) 8 days 5 days 6 days A. Preferable A. Preferable 3

CIFOR s Findings for Each diagnosed by CIDT at PHL. 8. Isolate subtyping interval: Median number of days from receipt of Salmonella, Shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC), and Listeria isolate to PFGE subtyping results. 9. PFGE E. coli O157 and Listeria subtyping interval: Percent of pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) subtyping data results for E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria submitted to the PulseNet national database within four working days of receiving isolate at the PFGE laboratory. 10. Outbreak clinical specimen collections: outbreak investigations with clinical specimens collected and submitted to PHL from 2 or more people. 11. Cluster investigation interval: Median number of days from initiation of investigation to identification of source. 4 days 5 6 days >90% of PFGE subtyping results submitted to PulseNet within 4 working days. > 75% of outbreaks 50 75% of outbreaks <7 days 7 21 days 5 days 4 days 4 days A. E. Coli (STEC) 92% B. Listeria 100% B. Acceptable 76% (19/25) Preferable 7 days Acceptable 12. Complaint investigation interval: <7 days Unable to calculate with available data. Not available Median numbers of days from initiation of investigation to implementation of intervention. 7 21 days 4

CIFOR s Findings for Each 13. Cluster source identification: 100% (8/8) Preferable clusters with more than five cases in which a source was identified. 14. Outbreak etiology reported to NORS: >20% of clusters with >5 cases 10 20% of clusters with >5 cases > 68% of outbreaks 76% (19/25) Preferable outbreaks for which etiology was identified and reported to the National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS). 15. Outbreak vehicle reported to NORS: outbreaks for which a vehicle was identified and reported to NORS. 16. Outbreak contributing factor reported to NORS: outbreaks for which contributing factors were identified and reported to NORS. 44 68% of outbreaks > 68% of outbreaks 44 68% of outbreaks > 68% of outbreaks 44 68% of outbreaks 56% (14/25) Acceptable 44% (11/25) Acceptable Discussion Of the 16 CIFOR performance indicators, 14 could be evaluated using available Tennessee data. Tennessee achieved either preferable or acceptable on those indicators where data were available. Number of outbreaks detected as a result of foodborne illness complaints and number of days from initiation of investigation to intervention implementation are not captured in Tennessee s foodborne illness complaint database, so performance indicators #2 and # 12 could not be calculated. Tennessee s FoodCORE Interview Team (FIT) conducts interviews for Salmonella, STEC and Listeria cases who reside in 93 of 95 Tennessee counties. Hamilton County and Davidson County interview cases from their jurisdiction locally. All case clinical and exposure data are entered into NEDSS. The FIT and local 5

health department staff perform many of the functions evaluated with the CIFOR performance indicators. Laboratory metrics are calculated from data in the StarLIMS system as well as BioNumerics. All data is available, however external calculations are used as neither information system directly reports answers to any of the metrics. The Tennessee Department of Health continues to educate local health department staff about the importance of collecting stool specimens during an outbreak investigation. Stool collection and shipping training has been developed to educate health department staff, as well as staff in long term care facilities that often collect stool during outbreaks in these types of facilities. Continued training on identifying food vehicles and contributing factors during an outbreak investigation is needed to improve performance indicators # 15 and #16. Calculating performance indicators #15, #16, as well as # 14 and #10 by Tennessee health region will be important to do in the future so training needs can be targeted to the appropriate regional health department. Recommendations Add variable to Tennessee foodborne illness complaint database that will capture whether or not the complaint resulted in an outbreak investigation. Continue to interview all cases of Salmonella, Shiga toxin producing E.coli, and Listeria and capture demographic, clinical and exposure data into NEDSS. Continue to educate clinical and reference lab partners about isolate/specimen submission and monitor completeness of isolate/specimen submission, testing, and reporting. Provide stool collection and shipping training to local health department staff, as well as to partners who may assist in stool collection during an outbreak investigation. Provide training to epidemiology, environmental health and laboratory staff on various methods to identify food vehicles. Provide training to epidemiology and environmental health on identifying, responding to and reporting contributing factors. Review NORS reports quarterly and provide NORS training when appropriate. References 1 Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response (CIFOR). Guidelines for Foodborne Disease Outbreak Response. 2 nd Edition. Atlanta: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, 2014. We would like to thank and recognize the Colorado Food Safety Center of Excellence for providing the template for this report. 6