IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/2001911142-145_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sentinel surveillance as an alternative approach for monitoring antibiotic-resistant invasive pneumococcal disease in Washington State

Author

Listed:
  • Jernigan, D.B.
  • Kargacin, L.
  • Poole, A.
  • Kobayashi, J.

Abstract

Objectives. As an alternative to statewide, mandated surveillance for antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, a sentinel surveillance network of 27 hospitals was developed in Washington State. Methods. The utility of targeted surveillance in population centers was assessed, current laboratory susceptibility testing practices were evaluated, and a baseline of pneumococcal resistance in Washington State was obtained for use in a statewide campaign promoting the judicious use of antibiotics. Results. Between July 1997 and June 1998, 300 cases were reported; 67 (22%) had diminished susceptibility to penicillin. Only 191 (64%) were fully tested with penicillin and an extended-spectrum cephalosporin (ESC) as nationally recommended; 10.5% were resistant to penicillin and 6.8% were resistant to an ESC. The number of isolates inadequately tested declined through the year. The findings were similar to those from more comprehensive active surveillance in Oregon for the same time period. Conclusions. Targeted surveillance may be an adequate alternative for limited monitoring of antibiotic resistance for states that choose not to mandate reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Jernigan, D.B. & Kargacin, L. & Poole, A. & Kobayashi, J., 2001. "Sentinel surveillance as an alternative approach for monitoring antibiotic-resistant invasive pneumococcal disease in Washington State," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(1), pages 142-145.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2001:91:1:142-145_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2001:91:1:142-145_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.