Learning Objectives for this Presentation:
By the end of the presentation, participants will be able to:
1.) Identify goals and priority areas for VPD surveillance.
2.) Describe the appropriate use and applications for VPD case definitions, clinical descriptions, and case classifications.
3.) List epidemiologically important data to collect during case investigation and laboratory confirmation for VPDs.
4.) Describe the concept of surveillance indicators and their application for monitoring surveillance of VPDs.


Background:
National passive surveillance for vaccine-preventable diseases can provide information to estimate burden of disease, determine geographic distribution, portray the natural history, generate hypotheses, stimulate research, evaluate control measures, monitor changes in infectious agents, detect changes in health practices, and facilitate planning. However, many factors contribute to variations in reporting for VPDs, including disease/condition characteristics (e.g., symptoms, incidence, severity), availability of laboratory diagnostics, patient and provider awareness, jurisdiction attributes (e.g., laws, regulations), disease transmission setting, and capacity for electronic data transmission.

Setting:
State and local public health officials receive case or laboratory reports from health-care providers, laboratories, and other public health partners. After epidemiologic investigation, public health officials submit reports of selected diseases to CDC's National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS). CDC publishes NNDSS data weekly in MMWR and yearly in the “Annual Summary of Notifiable Diseases.” In addition, NNDSS data and data reported to
supplemental surveillance systems are disseminated through regular surveillance reports, MMWR Surveillance Summaries, and other published articles.


Population:
Each state/jurisdiction has specific guidelines for surveillance and reporting of vaccine-preventable diseases, based on individual state needs as well as CDC and CSTE guidance.

Project Description:
Enhancing a data collection system is only one part of improving surveillance data; surveillance data assessment for notifiable diseases is also dependent on reporting completeness, investigative effort, and infrastructure/capacity.


Results/Lessons Learned:
National surveillance can be enhanced by encouraging provider reporting, assuring adequate case investigation, increasing completeness of case reporting, and strengthening surveillance infrastructure.