HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2006.098996v1 97/Supplement_1/S142    most recent Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nguyen, T. Q. Articles by Mostashari, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nguyen, T. Q. Articles by Mostashari, F.

Trang Quyen Nguyen, PhD, MPH, Lorna Thorpe, PhD, MPH, Hadi A. Makki and Farzad Mostashari, MD, MSc

Trang Quyen Nguyen is with the EIS Field Assignments Branch of the Office of Workforce and Career Development at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assigned to the Division of Epidemiology, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY. Lorna Thorpe is with the Division of Epidemiology, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York. Hadi A. Maki is with the Division of Financial and Strategic Management, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York. Farzad Mostashari is with the Division of Health Care Access and Improvement, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Trang Nguyen, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Division of Epidemiology, 125 Worth St, Room 315, CN-6 New York, NY 10013 (e-mail: tnguyen{at}health.nyc.gov).

Objectives. Despite national support for electronic laboratory reporting (ELR), the transition from paper to electronic reporting has been slow both nationally and locally. We assessed the ELR experience of New York City’s surveillance programs to identify barriers to ELR implementation and generalizable lessons about automated electronic notifiable disease surveillance.

Methods. We conducted interviews with key staff of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to evaluate ELR implementation. A review of paper and ELR disease reports enabled a comparison of the reporting systems.

Results. The completeness and timeliness of ELR were similar to, and sometimes better than, paper reporting for certain diseases. Incorporating electronic data into surveillance databases created new problems with data quality, shifted work demands, and required additional skills for data monitoring. ELR improved the handling of high-volume and time-sensitive diseases but did not completely automate reporting for diseases that required complicated assessments by staff.

Conclusions. Although ELR streamlines data processing, electronic reporting has its own limitations. A more successful use of ELR can be achieved by understanding its strengths and limitations for different disease types.