Guzewich John J, Bryan Frank L, Todd Ewen C D
Food Protection Section, Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food Protection, State of New York Department of Health, II University Place, Room 404, Albany, New York 12204-3399.
Food Safety Consultation and Training, 8233 Pleasant Hill Road, Lithonia, Georgia 30058, USA.
J Food Prot. 1997 May;60(5):555-566. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-60.5.555.
This is the first part of a four-part series on foodborne disease surveillance. Although these articles are primarily built on expertise gained within North America, the substance is of value to any community or country wishing to initiate or improve its surveillance system. Foodborne disease surveillance is necessary for preventing further spread of foodborne disease and includes identifying and controlling outbreaks at the time they are occurring; gathering data on incidence of these diseases and prevalence of their etiologic agents, vehicles, and reservoirs; identifying factors that led to the outbreaks; providing a data bank for HACCP systems and risk assessments; estimating health and economic impacts of foodborne diseases; and providing information upon which to base rational food safety program goals and priorities. Reports of outbreaks by local health agencies to regional and, then, national agencies responsible for disease surveillance, laboratory isolations of certain foodborne pathogens from human beings, sentinel community studies, and hazard surveillance are the types of foodborne disease surveillance activities that are used to varying extents in Canada and the U.S. In recent years, some national surveillance reports have been collated internationally in Europe and Latin America. Surveillance at local, state/provincial, national, and international levels must be coordinated for effective and rapid transfer of data. Computer software can assist investigation and management of the information submitted through surveillance networks. Information summarized on individual reports usually includes (a) location of the event, (b) clinical data, (c) epidemiologic data, (d) laboratory findings, and (e) results of on-site investigations. Each outbreak report should be subjected to critical review before classifying it into the various categories of surveillance data. Such a review would also be useful when comparing surveillance data from different places and intervals. Highlights of individual reports are tabulated as line listings that are the direct sources of surveillance data, which are the subject of the second and third parts of this series.
这是关于食源性疾病监测的四部分系列文章的第一部分。尽管这些文章主要基于在北美积累的专业知识,但对于任何希望启动或改进其监测系统的社区或国家来说,其内容都具有价值。食源性疾病监测对于预防食源性疾病的进一步传播是必要的,包括在食源性疾病爆发时进行识别和控制;收集这些疾病的发病率及其病原体、传播媒介和宿主的数据;确定导致爆发的因素;为危害分析与关键控制点(HACCP)系统和风险评估提供数据库;估计食源性疾病对健康和经济的影响;以及提供制定合理的食品安全计划目标和优先事项所需的信息。地方卫生机构向负责疾病监测的区域和国家机构报告疫情、从人类身上对某些食源性病原体进行实验室分离、哨点社区研究以及危害监测,这些都是在加拿大和美国不同程度上使用的食源性疾病监测活动类型。近年来,一些国家监测报告已在欧洲和拉丁美洲进行了国际整理。地方、州/省、国家和国际层面的监测必须进行协调,以便有效、快速地传输数据。计算机软件可以协助对通过监测网络提交的信息进行调查和管理。各份报告汇总的信息通常包括:(a)事件发生地点,(b)临床数据,(c)流行病学数据,(d)实验室检查结果,以及(e)现场调查结果。每份疫情报告在归类到各类监测数据之前都应进行严格审查。在比较来自不同地点和不同时间段的监测数据时,这样的审查也会很有用。各份报告的要点以一览表形式列出,这些一览表是监测数据的直接来源,也是本系列第二和第三部分的主题。