Identification of the surveillance systems
There are two approaches to the surveillance of meningococcal meningitis. At first, one should speak about the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). This system is adopted throughout the United States; in other words, it is a nationwide program. Additionally, it is important to mention such an approach as the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance or ABCs. This system is used at the state level; for instance, it is applied in such states as Georgia, Minnesota, New York, Maryland, and so forth (M’ikanatha, Lynfield, & Beneden, 2008, p. 32).
Effectiveness of the surveillance systems
Overall, each of the two systems has its strengths or weaknesses. The NNDSS is beneficial because it can quickly alert medical workers to potential dangers. According to the NNDSS, both confirmed and potential cases of meningococcal meningitis should be recorded. In contrast, according to the ABCs, only confirmed cases should be documented; so this approach to surveillance is more accurate.
The duties of the government
At the local level, the duty of the government is to monitor every potential or confirmed case of meningococcal meningitis. This monitoring is vital for limiting the spread of this disease. It is critical to identify the way in which a person could acquire this illness. At the state level, the duty of the government is to focus on the increases or decreases in the occurrence of this illness. This analysis can be important for developing policies that can reduce the spread of meningococcal meningitis (Davies & Youde, 2015). Furthermore, it is vital to examine the tasks of the government at the regional and national levels. In this case, the officials should examine the similarities and differences in the occurrence of meningococcal meningitis throughout the country. This approach is important for evaluating various prevention policies and making corrections if they are necessary.
Differences in the reporting requirements
As it has been said before, the NNDSS and ABCS have different reporting standards. The principles of ABCS imply that one should focus only on culture-confirmed cases of the diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). In other words, one should document only those cases when one can isolate the virus that leads to the disease. In turn, the NNDSS approach is based on the use of polymerase chain reaction. This diagnostic tool is usually less accurate.
The main lessons
Overall, one should consider several important lessons. At first, policy-makers should remember that various surveillance systems may differ in terms of their accuracy (Lombardo & Buckeridge, 2007). In this case, much depends on the quality of evidence that is used for monitoring the occurrence of this disease. Some of the surveillance systems can be more time-efficient. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about the NNDSS (Jenkins, 2010, p. 61; MacDonald, 2011). In many cases, this time-efficiency is critical for the proper response to a potential outbreak of the disease (Jajosky & Groseclose, 2004).
Conclusion
Thus, this discussion indicates that both NNDSS and ABCS should be considered by medical workers and policy-makers. However, they need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches (Institute of Medicine, 1998). As a rule, it is important to combine these approaches. These are the main points that should be made.
Reference List
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Comparison of Meningococcal Disease Surveillance Systems — United States. Web.
Davies, S., & Youde, J. (2015). The Politics of Surveillance and Response to Disease Outbreaks: The New Frontier for States and Non-state Actors. New York, NY: Ashgate Publishing.
Institute of Medicine. (1998). The future of public health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jajosky, R., & Groseclose, S. (2004). Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. Web.
Jenkins, W. (2010). Biosurveillance: Efforts to Develop a National Biosurveillance Capability Need a National Strategy and a Designated Leader. New York, NY: DIANE Publishing.
Lombardo, J., & Buckeridge, D. (2007). Disease surveillance: A public health informatics approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
MacDonald, P. (2011). Methods in Field Epidemiology. New York. NY: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
M’ikanatha, N., Lynfield, R., & Beneden, C. (2008). Infectious Disease Surveillance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.