Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 80, Supplement 1, pp i76–i88 | Cite as

Enhanced drop-in syndromic surveillance in New York City following September 11, 2001

  • Debjani Das
  • Don Weiss
  • Farzad Mostashari
  • Tracee Treadwell
  • Jennifer McQuiston
  • Lori Hutwagner
  • Adam Karpati
  • Katherine Bornschlegel
  • Mathew Seeman
  • Reina Turcios
  • Pauline Terebuh
  • Robin Curtis
  • Richard Heffernan
  • Sharon Balter
Article
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

After the 2001 World Trade Center disaster, the New York City Department of Health was under heightened alert for bioterrorist attacks in the city. An emergency department (ED) syndromic surveillance system was implemented with the assistance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure early recognition of an increase or clustering of disease syndromes that might represent a disease outbreak, whether natural or intentional. The surveillance system was based on data collected 7 days a week at area EDs. Data collected were translated into syndromes, entered into an electronic database, and analyzed for aberrations in space and time within 24 hours. From September 14–27, personnel were stationed at 15 EDs on a 24-hour basis (first staffing period); from September 29–October 12, due to resource limitations, personnel were stationed at 12 EDs on an 18-hour basis (second staffing period). A standardized form was used to obtain demographic information and classify each patient visit into 12 syndrome categories. Seven of these represented early manifestations of bioterrorist agents. Data transfer and analysis for time and space clustering (alarms) by syndrome and age occurred daily. Retrospective analyses examined syndrome trends, differences in reporting between staffing periods, and the staff’s experience during the project. A total of 67,536 reports were received. The system captured 83.9% of patient visits during the first staffing period, and 60.8% during the second staffing period (P<01). Five syndromes each accounted for more than 1% of visits: trauma, asthma, gastrointestinal illness, upper/lower respiratory infection with fever, and anxiety. Citywide temporal alarms occurred eight times for three of the major bioterrorism-related syndromes. Spatial clustering alarms occurred 16 time by hospital location and 9 times by ZIP code for the same three syndromes. No outbreaks were detected. On-site staffing to facilitate data collection and entry, supported by daily analysis of ED visits, is a feasible short-term approach to syndromic surveillance during high-profile events. The resources required to operate such a system, however, cannot be sustained for the long term. This system was changed to an electronic-based ED syndromic system using triage log data that remains in operation.

Keywords

Emergency Department Visit Syndromic Surveillance Gastrointestinal Illness York City Department Space Cluster 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Holtz TH, Leighton J, Balter S, Weiss, D, Blank S, Weisfuse I. The public health response to the World Trade Center disaster. In: Levy BS, Sidel VS, eds.Terrorism and Public Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003:19–48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hutwagner LC. Early Aberration Reporting System (EARS). Paper presented at: Session 4 of National Syndromic Surveillance Conference; 2002. September 23–24, 2002; New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kulldorff M. A spatial scan statistic.Commun Stat Theory Meth., 1997;26:1481–1496.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mostashari F, Kulldorff M, Hartman JJ, Miller JR, Kulasekera, V. Dead bird clustering: a potential early warning system for West Nile virus activity.Emerg Infect Dis J. In press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Inglesby TV, O’Toole T, Henderson DA et al. Anthrax as a biological weapon: updated recommendations for management.JAMA. 2002;287:2236–2252.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Inglesby TV, Dennis DT, Henderson DA, et al. Plague as a biological weapon: medical and public health management.JAMA, 2002;283:2281–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderson DA, Inglesby TV, Bartlett JG, et al. Smallpox as a biological weapon: medical and public health management.JAMA. 1999;281:2127–2137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dennis DT, Inglesby TV, Henderson DA, et al. Tularemia as a biological weapon: medical and public health management.JAMA. 2001;285:2763–2773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borio, L, Inglesby T, Peters CJ, et al. Hemorrhagic fever viruses as biological weapon: medical and public health management.JAMA. 2002;287:2391–2405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debjani Das
    • 1
  • Don Weiss
    • 1
  • Farzad Mostashari
    • 1
  • Tracee Treadwell
    • 2
  • Jennifer McQuiston
    • 2
  • Lori Hutwagner
    • 2
  • Adam Karpati
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katherine Bornschlegel
    • 1
  • Mathew Seeman
    • 2
  • Reina Turcios
    • 2
  • Pauline Terebuh
    • 2
  • Robin Curtis
    • 2
  • Richard Heffernan
    • 1
  • Sharon Balter
    • 1
  1. 1.New York City Department of HealthNew York
  2. 2.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlanta

Personalised recommendations