Surveillance designers should define and/or document how a suspected case of the hazard of interest is defined and reported to the relevant authorities. This is relevant to passive surveillance components where the collection of surveillance data is observer -initiated.

For active surveillance components a designer may skip ahead to section 6.

For the hazard of interest, the surveillance designer should outline the definition or criteria used to identify a suspect case (for instance which clinical signs). It may be useful to consider: Likelihood of recovery; description of possible clinical states (Subclinical, Subacute, Acute, Chronic, Mortality) and Differential diagnosis.

Are there currently any legal requirements in place in the region of interest requiring the reporting of a suspect case of this hazard? Laws or regulations should be listed or described, as well as any other obligations to report (may be associated with quality assurance schemes, trade etc).

What procedures will be put in place for reporting a suspect case? The steps that will be involved and the methods employed should be outline, including how the notification is sent to the authorities eg. Phone, email, post.

What will be the procedure following the reporting of a suspect case to the authorities? For example at what stage would/could restrictions be applied to premises or follow up investigations carried out?

What will be the procedures following the confirmation of notifiable disease? At what stage would/could restrictions be applied to premises? Note that the procedures and tests used to confirm a case are outlined in section 6 (testing protocol).

You could leave a comment if you were logged in.
  • 4-disease-suspicion.txt
  • Last modified: 2018/08/01 16:05
  • by thorsten