Befragung der Gesundheitsämter zur Umsetzung des Meldewesens nach dem Infektionsschutzgesetz

Abstract

Die Einführung des Infektionsschutzgesetzes im Januar 2001 hatte inhaltliche und verfahrenstechnische Änderungen in der infektionsepidemiologischen Überwachung meldepflichtiger Erkrankungen in Deutschland zur Folge. Die Umsetzung des Meldesystems wurde mit dem Ziel untersucht, Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten zu identifizieren. Mittels Befragung aller bundesdeutschen Gesundheitsämter wurden folgende Kriterien analysiert: Ressourcen (personelle und technische Ausstattung), Informationsbedarf (Zufriedenheit mit bestehenden Angeboten/weiterer Trainingsbedarf), Datennutzung (Umfang eigener Datenauswertungen/Ergebnisrückkopplung), Akzeptanz (Falldefinitionen/EDV-gestütztes Meldeverfahren). Bezogen auf die Gesamtmitarbeiterzahlen ist ein Anteil von durchschnittlich 11% im Meldewesen tätig. Die Bearbeitung von Meldedaten erfolgt hauptsächlich durch nichtärztliches Personal (78,4%). Fast jedem Mitarbeiter steht dafür ein PC zur Verfügung. Knapp ein Drittel der Gesundheitsämter verwendet das vom RKI entwickelte Meldeprogramm "SurvNet@rki", alle anderen nutzen eine kommerzielle Software. Ihre Erfahrungen mit der EDV bezeichneten 47,1% der Gesundheitsämter als sehr gut bzw. gut. Befriedigend gaben 44,5% an, problematisch 8,4%. Der überwiegende Teil der Gesundheitsämter ist mit den Informationsangeboten des RKI (96,4%) bzw. ihrer Landesstelle (83,7%) zufrieden, dennoch besteht bei 49,1% weiterer Fortbildungsbedarf. Die Verwendung von Falldefinitionen befürworten 95% aller Gesundheitsämter, allerdings werden die Übermittlungskriterien kritisch beurteilt. Die Umsetzung des neuen Meldewesens ist erfolgreich verlaufen. Zur Optimierung des Systems können folgende Maßnahmen beitragen: Vermeidung Software-bedingter Probleme bei der Datenverarbeitung und Übermittlung, Ausbau der vorhandenen Informationsangebote und Bereitstellung zielgruppenorientierter Fortbildungsprogramme sowie Überarbeitung der Falldefinitionen bezüglich einer einfacheren Handhabung.

The Infectious Disease Control Act enacted in Germany in January 2001 led to the establishment of a new reporting system for infectious disease. The implementation of this system was evaluated to identify opportunities for further improvement. In a survey of all German local health departments the following criteria were analyzed: resources (staff and technical equipment), information needs (satisfaction with current offers/further training requirements), data analysis (extent of local data analysis/feedback of national data), and acceptability (case definitions/electronic reporting). In local health departments, 11% of the staff were assigned to the infectious disease reporting system. Data were processed mainly by nonmedical staff (78.4%). A computer work-station is available for most staff members. One-third of the local health departments uses the RKI software "SurvNet@rki" for data transmission. All others use commercial software. Experience with the electronic reporting system was rated as very good/good by 47.1% of local health departments, as satisfactory by 44.5%, and as problematic by 8.4%. Most of the local health departments were satisfied with the offers of information provided by RKI (96.4%) and state health departments (83.7%), respectively. However, 49.1% of the local health departments saw a need for further education and training. The implementation of case definitions was supported by 95% of the local health departments, but transmission criteria were criticized. In summary, the new infectious disease reporting system in Germany was successfully implemented. However, the system could be improved through reduction of software problems concerning electronic data processing and transmission, expansion of current offers of in-formation and provision of special staff training programs, and revision of the case definitions concerning clearness and simpler handling.The Infectious Disease Control Act enacted in Germany in January 2001 led to the establishment of a new reporting system for infectious disease. The implementation of this system was evaluated to identify opportunities for further improvement. In a survey of all German local health departments the following criteria were analyzed: resources (staff and technical equipment), information needs (satisfaction with current offers/further training requirements), data analysis (extent of local data analysis/feedback of national data), and acceptability (case definitions/electronic reporting). In local health departments, 11% of the staff were assigned to the infectious disease reporting system. Data were processed mainly by nonmedical staff (78.4%). A computer work-station is available for most staff members. One-third of the local health departments uses the RKI software ldquoSurvNet@rkirdquo for data transmission. All others use commercial software. Experience with the electronic reporting system was rated as very good/good by 47.1% of local health departments, as satisfactory by 44.5%, and as problematic by 8.4%. Most of the local health departments were satisfied with the offers of information provided by RKI (96.4%) and state health departments (83.7%), respectively. However, 49.1% of the local health departments saw a need for further education and training. The implementation of case definitions was supported by 95% of the local health departments, but transmission criteria were criticized. In summary, the new infectious disease reporting system in Germany was successfully implemented. However, the system could be improved through reduction of software problems concerning electronic data processing and transmission, expansion of current offers of in-formation and provision of special staff training programs, and revision of the case definitions concerning clearness and simpler handling.