Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Mar 27:13:276.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-276.

The epidemiology and surveillance response to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) among local health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area

Affiliations

The epidemiology and surveillance response to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) among local health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area

Wayne T A Enanoria et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Public health surveillance and epidemiologic investigations are critical public health functions for identifying threats to the health of a community. Very little is known about how these functions are conducted at the local level. The purpose of the Epidemiology Networks in Action (EpiNet) Study was to describe the epidemiology and surveillance response to the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) by city and county health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. The study also documented lessons learned from the response in order to strengthen future public health preparedness and response planning efforts in the region.

Methods: In order to characterize the epidemiology and surveillance response, we conducted key informant interviews with public health professionals from twelve local health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area. In order to contextualize aspects of organizational response and performance, we recruited two types of key informants: public health professionals who were involved with the epidemiology and surveillance response for each jurisdiction, as well as the health officer or his/her designee responsible for H1N1 response activities. Information about the organization, data sources for situation awareness, decision-making, and issues related to surge capacity, continuity of operations, and sustainability were collected during the key informant interviews. Content and interpretive analyses were conducted using ATLAS.ti software.

Results: The study found that disease investigations were important in the first months of the pandemic, often requiring additional staff support and sometimes forcing other public health activities to be put on hold. We also found that while the Incident Command System (ICS) was used by all participating agencies to manage the response, the manner in which it was implemented and utilized varied. Each local health department (LHD) in the study collected epidemiologic data from a variety of sources, but only case reports (including hospitalized and fatal cases) and laboratory testing data were used by all organizations. While almost every LHD attempted to collect school absenteeism data, many respondents reported problems in collecting and analyzing these data. Laboratory capacity to test influenza specimens often aided an LHD's ability to conduct disease investigations and implement control measures, but the ability to test specimens varied across the region and even well-equipped laboratories exceeded their capacity. As a whole, the health jurisdictions in the region communicated regularly about key decision-making (continued on next page) (continued from previous page) related to the response, and prior regional collaboration on pandemic influenza planning helped to prepare the region for the novel H1N1 influenza pandemic. The study did find, however, that many respondents (including the majority of epidemiologists interviewed) desired an increase in regional communication about epidemiology and surveillance issues.

Conclusion: The study collected information about the epidemiology and surveillance response among LHDs in the San Francisco Bay Area that has implications for public health preparedness and emergency response training, public health best practices, regional public health collaboration, and a perceived need for information sharing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual framework of public health surveillance and public health action. The figure was adapted from McNabb et al. [11] and modified to emphasize the importance of epidemiologic inferences.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Association of Bay Area Health Officials.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health preparedness capabilities: National standards for state and local planning. Tech. rep., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. [ http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/capabilities/]. [Originally posted March 21, 2011 and updated on July 22, 2011]
    1. Moehrle C. Who conducts epidemiology activities in local public health departments? Public Health Rep. 2008;123(Suppl 1):6–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hossain L, Kuti M. Disaster response preparedness coordination through social networks. Disasters. 2010;34(3):755–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01168.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2009 National assessment of epidemiology capacity. Findings and recommendations. Tech. rep., Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. 2009. [ http://www.cste.org]
    1. Madamala K, Sellers K, Beitsch LM, Pearsol J, Jarris PE. Structure and functions of state public health agencies in 2007. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(7):1179–1186. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300011. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types