1. Incidence of Hospital Norovirus Outbreaks and Infections Using 2 Surveillance Methods in Sweden
- Author
-
P. J. Hugo Johansson, Malin Inghammar, Carl-Johan Fraenkel, and Blenda Böttiger
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,0301 basic medicine ,Microbiology (medical) ,Infectious Medicine ,Pediatrics ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Adolescent ,Epidemiology ,030106 microbiology ,Surveillance Methods ,medicine.disease_cause ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Disease Outbreaks ,Young Adult ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Predictive Value of Tests ,medicine ,Humans ,Prospective Studies ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Symptom onset ,Child ,Aged ,Caliciviridae Infections ,Aged, 80 and over ,Sweden ,business.industry ,Incidence (epidemiology) ,Norovirus ,Infant, Newborn ,Infant ,Outbreak ,Middle Aged ,Positive patient ,Predictive value ,Gastroenteritis ,Infectious Diseases ,Child, Preschool ,Epidemiological Monitoring ,Female ,Seasons ,business - Abstract
OBJECTIVETo evaluate 2 different methods of surveillance and to estimate the incidence of norovirus (NoV) outbreaks in hospitals.DESIGNProspective observational study.SETTINGAll 194 hospital wards in southern Sweden during 2 winter seasons (2010–2012).METHODSClinical surveillance based on outbreak reports of 2 or more clinical cases, with symptom onset within 5 days, was compared with laboratory surveillance based on positive NoV results among inpatients. At least 2 NoV positive patients sampled within 5 days at a ward defined a cluster. Outbreak reports including at least 1 NoV positive case and clusters including at least 1 NoV positive patient with 5 or more days from ward admission to sampling were defined as NoV outbreaks.RESULTSDuring the study periods 135 NoV outbreaks were identified; 74 were identified by both clinical and laboratory surveillance, 18 were identified only by outbreak reports, and 43 were identified only by laboratory surveillance. The outbreak incidence was 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8–1.2) and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3–0.6) per 1,000 admissions for the 2 different seasons, respectively. To correctly identify NoV outbreaks, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the clinical surveillance were 68% and 88% and of the laboratory surveillance were 86% and 81%, respectively.CONCLUSIONThe addition of laboratory surveillance significantly improves outbreak surveillance and provides a more complete estimate of NoV outbreaks in hospitals. Laboratory surveillance can be recommended for evaluation of clinical surveillance.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1–7
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF