Syndromic Surveillance in California

Syndromic Surveillance in California One state's less-than-stellar experience tracking disease By Katherine Eban ARTICLE EXTRAS Biosense or Biononsense? As spinach tainted with a deadly Escherichia coli made its way last year from a California farm through 26 states, sickening more than 200 people and killing three, a bill to advance symptom mo

Katherine Eban
Apr 1, 2007

Syndromic Surveillance in California

One state's less-than-stellar experience tracking disease
By Katherine Eban


As spinach tainted with a deadly Escherichia coli made its way last year from a California farm through 26 states, sickening more than 200 people and killing three, a bill to advance symptom monitoring was making far slower progress through the California state bureaucracy. To some public-health experts, it was déjà vu all over again, on two counts: a tidal wave of symptoms that no one saw, until it was too late; and a possible solution encountering bureaucratic resistance.

Since 2003, two statewide commissions on emergency preparedness had advised that California urgently needed electronic systems for syndromic surveillance and disease reporting. A report by the Little Hoover Commission in 2003 noted that in California, only one-fifth of "reportable" diseases and conditions are actually reported to public health officials. "When a California food...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?