Evaluation of Dengue Virus Infection in Soengsang Hospital, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand, 2017

Abstract

Background: During 2013–2016, the incidences of Dengue in Soengsang district, Nakhon Ratchasima Province were constantly high. By contrast, the 506–disease reports were relatively low. This could show the problems of the surveillance system that might cause the Dengue infection control unsuccessfully. The team conducted the evaluation of Dengue surveillance system of Soengsang Hospital. The objectives were to know the quantitative and qualitative attributes of the surveillance system and to give the recommendation for Dengue surveillance system.
Methods: The Cross–sectional study during 1 January–31 October 2017 was conducted. In the patients who visited Soengsang hospital and were diagnosed with selected ICD–10–TM. We reviewed the 506 report as well as the medical records in order to identify the quantitative attributes of Dengue Surveillance System. For qualitative attributes, we interviewed health personnel who involved in the Surveillance System.
Results: Form reviewing medical records, 39 cases met with the case definition of Dengue surveillance. Only 14 cases were reported in 506 reporting system. The sensitivity was 35.90%. From total 15 cases in 506 report, 14 cases met with the case definition. The positive predictive value was 93.33%. The timeliness of reporting was 3 5 . 9 0 %. All medical records (100%) had completely filled variables. The accuracy was 85.71% in variable ‘Patient’s name’ but 100% in the rest of variables. All variables could be representatives of population. For qualitative attributes; 1) Using the information from the surveillance system was common in managerial level but still limited in operational level. 2) The hospital personnel accepted the surveillance system even some of them still hesitated about the reporting policy. 3) The reporting process was simple according to the software programs as well as the technologies that facilitated and shortened each working step. 4) The surveillance system was stable because of its workflows and guidelines were clear. 5) The flexibility of surveillance system was low because of fixed and limited number of staffs who were responsible for the reporting process.
Recommendation: Developing the capacity of personnel reporting disease in addition to reserve personnel who can operate interchangeably on the personnel responsible for the absence.