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
. 2020 Oct;25(39):1900591.
doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.39.1900591.

Automated digital reporting of clinical laboratory information to national public health surveillance systems, results of a EU/EEA survey, 2018

Katrin Claire Leitmeyer  1 , Laura Espinosa  1 , Eeva Kaarina Broberg  1 , Marc Jean Struelens  1 ; ECDC National Focal Points laboratory e-reporting survey group members  2 ; ECDC National Focal Points laboratory e-reporting survey group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Automated digital reporting of clinical laboratory information to national public health surveillance systems, results of a EU/EEA survey, 2018

Katrin Claire Leitmeyer et al. Euro Surveill. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

BackgroundTimely reporting of microbiology test results is essential for infection management. Automated, machine-to-machine (M2M) reporting of diagnostic and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) data from laboratory information management systems (LIMS) to public health agencies improves timeliness and completeness of communicable disease surveillance.AimWe surveyed microbiology data reporting practices for national surveillance of EU-notifiable diseases in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries in 2018.MethodsEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) National Microbiology and Surveillance Focal Points completed a questionnaire on the modalities and scope of clinical microbiology laboratory data reporting.ResultsComplete data were provided for all 30 EU/EEA countries. Clinical laboratories used a LIMS in 28 countries. LIMS data on EU-notifiable diseases and AMR were M2M-reported to the national level in 14 and nine countries, respectively. In the 14 countries, associated demographic data reported allowed the de-duplication of patient reports. In 13 countries, M2M-reported data were used for cluster detection at the national level. M2M laboratory data reporting had been validated against conventional surveillance methods in six countries, and replaced those in five. Barriers to M2M reporting included lack of information technology support and financial incentives.ConclusionM2M-reported laboratory data were used for national public health surveillance and alert purposes in nearly half of the EU/EEA countries in 2018. Reported data on infectious diseases and AMR varied in extent and disease coverage across countries and laboratories. Improving automated laboratory-based surveillance will depend on financial and regulatory incentives, and harmonisation of health information and communication systems.

Keywords: antimicrobial resistance; automated data reporting; clinical microbiology testing; communicable diseases; digital surveillance; early-warning; electronic laboratory reporting; public health surveillance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Clinical laboratories reporting data by automated machine-to-machine communication to national surveillance databases, 30 EU/EEA countries, December 2018
Figure 2
Figure 2
Countries reporting EU-notifiable disease data from clinical diagnostic laboratories to national surveillance databases, by disease and reporting methoda, 30 EU/EEA countries, December 2018
Figure 3
Figure 3
Automated reporting of clinical laboratory data (diagnostic and antimicrobial susceptibility testing dataa) to national surveillance databases, 14 EU/EEA countries with automated laboratory-based surveillance capability, December 2018
Figure 4
Figure 4
Modes clinical diagnostic laboratories use to report EU priority indicator antimicrobial-resistant pathogensa to national surveillance databases, 14 EU/EEA countries with automated laboratory-based surveillance capability, December 2018
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Enki DG, Noufaily A, Garthwaite PH, Andrews NJ, Charlett A, Lane C, et al. Automated biosurveillance data from England and Wales, 1991-2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(1):35-42. 10.3201/eid1901.120493 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Colson P, Rolain JM, Abat C, Charrel R, Fournier PE, Raoult D. EPIMIC: A Simple Homemade Computer Program for Real-Time EPIdemiological Surveillance and Alert Based on MICrobiological Data. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144178. 10.1371/journal.pone.0144178 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dessau RB, Espenhain L, Mølbak K, Krause TG, Voldstedlund M. Improving national surveillance of Lyme neuroborreliosis in Denmark through electronic reporting of specific antibody index testing from 2010 to 2012. Euro Surveill. 2015;20(28):21184. 10.2807/1560-7917.ES2015.20.28.21184 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Condell O, Gubbels S, Nielsen J, Espenhain L, Frimodt-Møller N, Engberg J, et al. Corrigendum to ‘Automated surveillance system for hospital-acquired urinary tract infections in Denmark’ [Journal of Hospital Infection 93 (2016) 290-296]. J Hosp Infect. 2016;94(4):410. 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.09.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ridgway JP, Sun X, Tabak YP, Johannes RS, Robicsek A. Performance characteristics and associated outcomes for an automated surveillance tool for bloodstream infection. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(5):567-71. 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.044 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources