住院急性呼吸道感染与侵袭性肺炎球菌病监测项目核心指标评估

Evaluation on key parameters in a program of population-based SARI&IPD inpatients surveillance

目的为获得高质量的监测数据,对监测项目中关键指标进行系统评估。方法以中美疾病预防控制中心新发和再发传染病合作项目之子项目——基于人群的住院急性呼吸道感染病例和侵袭性肺炎球菌病监测(SARI&IPD)项目为研究对象,在病例登记系统(公共卫生科数据库)数据的基础上,采取单纯随机抽样方式,对2010年7～12月、2011年1～6月和2011年7～12月3个时间段的监测工作中,病例纳入的准确性和完整性、报告信息的准确性和完整性、标本的采集率进行评估。结果 3次评估结果中,明显改善的指标有:病例纳入的准确率(81.00%,91.25%,98.60%)、漏报率(25.00%,14.29%,12.88%),成人血标本采集率(80.00%,90.13%,96.79%)、尿标本采集率(62.00%,84.76%,90.12%);保持良好水平的指标有:调查表填写的完整率、数据录入的准确率和鼻咽拭子标本采集率,均在95.00%以上。然而,痰标本采集率的第3次评估结果较第2次明显降低(26.00%,77.86%,39.67%);保持低水平的指标为儿童血标本采集率(13.00%,12.66%,8.95%)。结论定期对项目的关键指标进行系统评估可为监测单位提高监测质量奠定基础。

Objective To evaluate several key parameters in the program of population-based SARI＆IPD inpatients surveillance. Methods Cases were selected by simple random sampling from a case-enrolled system （Public Health Division Database） of the program during three different periods （July-December 2010, January-June 2011 and July-December 2011, respectively）. The evaluated parameters were： the accuracy and integrality of caseregistration and ease-informa- tion, and collection rates of varied specimen. Results Some parameters were improved obviously by a comparison with the data available from three different periods, which showed that the accuracy rate of case-registration increased from 81.00% to 98.60%, while the omission rate of case-registration decreased from 25.00% to 12.88%. The rates of specimen collection for blood （ adult cases, age ≥ 18 years） and urine increased from 80.00% to 96. 79% and from 62. 00% to 90. 12% respectively. In addition, some parameters were maintained in a satisfactory high level （ above 95.00% ） all the time, such as the integrality of questionnaire records, the accuracy of data entry and the specimen collection of nasopharyngeal swabs. However, the rates of specimen collection for sputum and for blood （children case, age 〈 18 years） decreased from 77. 86% to 39. 67%, and from 13% to 8.95% respectively, which showed an unsatisfactory low level, from 77.86% to 39. 67%, and from 13% to 8.95% respectively, which showed an unsatisfactory low level. Conclusions It is suggested that the regular evaluation on the key parameters is helpful to improve the quality of disease surveillance in this program.