Self-reported fever and measured temperature in emergency department records used for syndromic surveillance: Table 1

Kass-Hout, Taha; Buckeridge, David L.; Brownstein, John S.; Xu, Zhiheng; McMurray, Paul; Ishikawa, Charles; Gunn, Julia; Massoudi, Barbara

doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000847

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This allowed for not only more comprehensive and complete ED syndromic surveillance for influenza, but also for research and program evaluation on best practice paradigms for ED surveillance for influenza in general. [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] The DiSTRUIBuTE program ceased data collection in May 31, 2012, due to “the evolving nature of syndromic surveillance in the US.” (http://syndromic.org/component/content/article/11-programming/35-distribute-project, accessed April 24, 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syndromic Surveillance for Influenza in the Emergency Department–A Systematic Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science of surveillance is rapidly evolving due to changes in public health information and preparedness as national security issues, new information technologies and health reform. As the Emergency Department has become a much more utilized venue for acute care, it has also become a more attractive data source for disease surveillance. In recent years, influenza surveillance from the Emergency Department has increased in scope and breadth and has resulted in innovative and increasingly accepted methods of surveillance for influenza and influenza-like-illness (ILI). We undertook a systematic review of published Emergency Department-based influenza and ILI syndromic surveillance systems. A PubMed search using the keywords “syndromic”, “surveillance”, “influenza” and “emergency” was performed. Manuscripts were included in the analysis if they described (1) data from an Emergency Department (2) surveillance of influenza or ILI and (3) syndromic or clinical data. Meeting abstracts were excluded. The references of included manuscripts were examined for additional studies. A total of 38 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria, describing 24 discrete syndromic surveillance systems. Emergency Department-based influenza syndromic surveillance has been described worldwide. A wide variety of clinical data was used for surveillance, including chief complaint/presentation, preliminary or discharge diagnosis, free text analysis of the entire medical record, Google flu trends, calls to teletriage and help lines, ambulance dispatch calls, case reports of H1N1 in the media, markers of ED crowding, admission and Left Without Being Seen rates. Syndromes used to capture influenza rates were nearly always related to ILI (i.e. fever +/− a respiratory or constitutional complaint), however, other syndromes used for surveillance included fever alone, “respiratory complaint” and seizure. Two very large surveillance networks, the North American DiSTRIBuTE network and the European Triple S system have collected large-scale Emergency Department-based influenza and ILI syndromic surveillance data. Syndromic surveillance for influenza and ILI from the Emergency Department is becoming more prevalent as a measure of yearly influenza outbreaks.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syndromic Surveillance for Influenza in the Emergency Department–A Systematic Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We did not report objective variables related to symptoms such as measured body temperature. In that context, presence of fever means: feelings of chills, body temperature changes, or self-measured body temperatures above 38.3 ℃ [25,26].…”

Section: Patient Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptomatology of COVID-19 from the otorhinolaryngology perspective: a survey of 223 SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive patients

Salepçi

Türk

Ozcan

et al. 2020

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine prevalence, severity, duration, and time from onset to diagnosis of general and Otorhinolaryngologic symptoms related to COVID-19 in whole disease spectrum: from mild to critical patients. Methods All adult patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA found in nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs between March 10 and April 21, 2020 were surveyed by the authors for new onset symptoms during disease course. Demographic features, general symptoms, and Otorhinolaryngological symptoms were evaluated and compared by disease severity. Results Of 223 included patients, 18.4% had mild, 61.4%; moderate, 14.3%; severe, and 5.8%; critical disease. Median age was 51 (range 20-93), 113 (50.7%) were male and 110 (49.3%) were female. The most common general symptoms were fatigue, cough, and fever with respective frequencies of 71.3%, 54.3%, and 50.7%. The most common Otorhinolaryngologic symptoms were taste loss, smell loss, and sore throat with respective frequencies of 34.5%, 31.8%, and 26%. Fatigue, fever, and dyspnea were more common in severe-critical patients compared to mild-moderate patients (p = 0.029, p = 0.016, and p < 0.001, respectively). Only smell loss was more common in mild-moderate group (p = 0.003). Prevalence of other symptoms did not differ between groups. Symptom durations and onset time to diagnosis varied. Conclusion When compared to the previous studies, while general symptoms were less common, Otorhinolaryngologic symptoms were more common in our study population. Considering high infection risks, Otorhinolaryngologists should be aware of COVID-19 patients presenting with Otorhinolaryngologic complaints.

show abstract

“…Further developments in the standardisation of, and increased breadth of, information available from electronic patient records and real-time entry of data into the ED patient record are allowing for additional, more granular detail to be made available in (near) real-time for surveillance purposes. The collection of patient observation details, particularly temperature, has been discussed for the more reliable identification of patients attending ED with a clinical fever (rather than self-reported) [ 141 ]. Future exploration into the use of combinations of data fields from the ED patient care record (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergency department syndromic surveillance systems: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Syndromic surveillance provides public health intelligence to aid in early warning and monitoring of public health impacts (e.g. seasonal influenza), or reassurance when an impact has not occurred. Using information collected during routine patient care, syndromic surveillance can be based on signs/symptoms/preliminary diagnoses. This approach makes syndromic surveillance much timelier than surveillance requiring laboratory confirmed diagnoses. The provision of healthcare services and patient access to them varies globally. However, emergency departments (EDs) exist worldwide, providing unscheduled urgent care to people in acute need. This provision of care makes ED syndromic surveillance (EDSyS) a potentially valuable tool for public health surveillance internationally. The objective of this study was to identify and describe the key characteristics of EDSyS systems that have been established and used globally. Methods We systematically reviewed studies published in peer review journals and presented at International Society of Infectious Disease Surveillance conferences (up to and including 2017) to identify EDSyS systems which have been created and used for public health purposes. Search criteria developed to identify “emergency department” and “syndromic surveillance” were applied to NICE healthcare, Global Health and Scopus databases. Results In total, 559 studies were identified as eligible for inclusion in the review, comprising 136 journal articles and 423 conference abstracts/papers. From these studies we identified 115 EDSyS systems in 15 different countries/territories across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Systems ranged from local surveillance based on a single ED, to comprehensive national systems. National EDSyS systems were identified in 8 countries/territories: 2 reported inclusion of ≥85% of ED visits nationally (France and Taiwan). Conclusions EDSyS provides a valuable tool for the identification and monitoring of trends in severe illness. Technological advances, particularly in the emergency care patient record, have enabled the evolution of EDSyS over time. EDSyS reporting has become closer to ‘real-time’, with automated, secure electronic extraction and analysis possible on a daily, or more frequent basis. The dissemination of methods employed and evidence of successful application to public health practice should be encouraged to support learning from best practice, enabling future improvement, harmonisation and collaboration between systems in future. Prospero number CRD42017069150.

show abstract

Self-reported fever and measured temperature in emergency department records used for syndromic surveillance: Table 1

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Syndromic Surveillance for Influenza in the Emergency Department–A Systematic Review

Syndromic Surveillance for Influenza in the Emergency Department–A Systematic Review

Symptomatology of COVID-19 from the otorhinolaryngology perspective: a survey of 223 SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive patients

Emergency department syndromic surveillance systems: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About