SFR Position Statement on 2019 template
Hope you all had a wonderful holiday! My sincerest apologies for the delay in posting the updated draft of the SFR position statement. My son was home sick the last three days before the holidays, so I wasn't able to finish my edits by the promised date.
The attached document includes the following discussed edits:
- Sentence providing evidence of background SFR seroprevalence
- Language about how to classify a stable IgG titer between paired serum specimens
- Changed supportive laboratory criteria to >=1:64 instead of <1:128
- Included language about changing reporting of case counts from weekly to annual finalized numbers
This draft is on the 2019 position statement template (thanks for sending, Abelardo!). The bright blue text indicates instructions and must be deleted before submission. The navy blue text is our information I've added. Based on the changes to the 2019 template, it looks like we have some more work to do in fleshing out some of the updated sections. Also, everyone needs to add their information in the author/co-author sections.
Would it be too soon to have our next Core WG call on Friday or Monday?
Thanks,
Kristen
Would it be too soon to have our next Core WG call on Friday or Monday?
Thanks,
Kristen
The sections on case ascertainment / reporting look good to me.
This sparks a question for the group though. In Arizona, we have laboratories report all positive and negative laboratory results. This was put into place before I arrived at ADHS and has been helpful to understand the threshold of testing (it is very high!). Most of our RMSF labs come through via ELR. Of course, most of these are the negative acutes that never are able to have full follow-up. Do other states have this type of reporting? Or is it only the positives, and from there the investigation helps find confirmed cases. I am not sure how beneficial it would be to get the labs in Arizona to stop reporting the negatives, but it would surely reduce the burden of reviewing records in our surveillance system.
Lastly, my full information for authorship is below. Whatever order you all think makes sense if fine with me.
Hayley D. Yaglom, MS, MPH
Senior Vector-borne & Zoonotic Disease Epidemiologist
Arizona Department of Health Services
150 N. 18th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-364-3676
Hayley.Yaglom@azdhs.gov
I don't think that is too soon though Monday is best for me, I have some conflicting meetings on Friday.
Carl
Carl
Monday also works best for me.
Haley - I agree with Carl and assume most jurisdictions do not get negative results. We were recently able to require lab reporting of negative hep C NAT results (which was a huge amount of work), and we were also able to get temporary reporting of negative Zika results.
I would suggest keeping your system as is and figure out a way to manage the negative labs to avoid unnecessary work.
Similar to NC, we use Maven to capture all of our ELRs. Maven can be tailored so that an automated process can be used to identify a neg lab that comes in to the Maven database. The negative labs could then be coded as not a case and keep it from getting on to our "workflow" of cases that need review. Any subsequent positive labs for the same person would make it to the review workflow. I'm sure my explanation sounds a bit cryptic - but happy to provide more info if you are interested.
Also, Monday works for me.
Thanks Kristen for working on this over the break and with a sick kid. You get the MVP award!