Learning Objectives for this Presentation:
By the end of the presentation participants will be able to:
• describe VPD surveillance indicators
• understand historical and current surveillance indicator data for measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, and Haemophilus influenzae
• discuss the utility of new surveillance indicators

Background:
Vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) surveillance indicators are designed to assess the quality of national surveillance, and to identify components of surveillance that need improvement. Five types of surveillance indicators have been developed, including infrastructure, practices/procedures, thoroughness and appropriateness of case investigation, laboratory performance, and completeness of case reporting.
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.


Objectives:
Assess national VPD surveillance data

Methods:
Surveillance indicators are monitored using data reported to CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS), including the National Electronic Telecommunications System for Surveillance (NETSS) and the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (NEDSS). Analyses (1997-2005) included completeness of epidemiologically important information, timeliness of reporting, vaccination history, laboratory testing, importation status, and other indicators of investigative effort.

Results:
For H. influenzae cases, data completeness is very low, especially the percent of cases <5 years with serotype and with complete vaccine history. For measles cases, data completeness, determination of importation status, and laboratory testing at CDC must be maintained. For pertussis cases, enhanced documentation of adult and child vaccine history is needed, while building laboratory testing infrastructure. For rubella cases, data completeness should be enhanced, focusing on pregnancy status for females and importation status for all cases. For mumps cases, effort must be enhanced to achieve data completeness, and laboratory testing must be provided for case confirmation.

Conclusions:
Surveillance indicators can be monitored using passive surveillance data collected electronically.