Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025

Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Testing Utilizing Saliva and Transposition Sample Pooling
Published on: June 23, 2022
Lessons Learned From Implementation of Mpox Surveillance During an Outbreak Response in Tennessee, 2022
Christine M Thomas1,2, Julie Shaffner2,3, Renee Johnson4
1Epidemic Intelligence Service, Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Objectives:
Mpox surveillance was integral during the 2022 outbreak response. We evaluated implementation of mpox surveillance in Tennessee during an outbreak response and made recommendations for surveillance during emerging infectious disease outbreaks.
Methods:
To understand surveillance implementation, system processes, and areas for improvement, we conducted 8 semistructured focus groups and 7 interviews with 36 health care, laboratory, and health department representatives during September 9-20, 2022. We categorized and analyzed session transcription and notes. We analyzed completeness and timeliness of surveillance data, including 349 orthopoxvirus-positive laboratory reports from commercial, public health, and health system laboratories during July 1-August 31, 2022.
Results:
Participants described an evolving system and noted that existing informatics platforms inefficiently supported iterations of reporting requirements. Clear communication, standardization of terminology, and shared, adaptable, and user-friendly informatics platforms were prioritized for future emerging infectious disease surveillance systems. Laboratory-reported epidemiologic information was often incomplete; only 55% (191 of 349) of reports included patient address and telephone number. The median time from symptom onset to specimen collection was 5 days (IQR, 3-6 d), from specimen collection to laboratory reporting was 3 days (IQR, 1-4 d), from laboratory reporting to patient interview was 1 day (IQR, 1-3 d), and from symptom onset to patient interview was 9 days (IQR, 7-12 d).
Conclusions:
Future emerging infectious disease responses would benefit from standardized surveillance approaches that facilitate rapid implementation. Closer collaboration among informatics, laboratory, and clinical partners across jurisdictions and agencies in determining system priorities and designing workflow processes could improve flexibility of the surveillance platform and completeness and timeliness of laboratory reporting. Improved timeliness will facilitate public health response and intervention, thereby mitigating morbidity.
Related Concept Videos
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
Principles of Disease Surveillance
Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
Transmission-based Precautions II: Airborne and Protective Environment
Airborne precautions:
Use airborne precautions when treating patients known or suspected to have diseases that spread through the air—for example, tuberculosis or measles. These organisms are present in smaller droplets expelled by an infected person and...
Pulmonary Tuberculosis V
Latent tuberculosis infection occurs when TB bacteria are present in a person's body, but are not causing illness or symptoms. It is not contagious, and preventive treatment is crucial to avoid the...
Transmission-based Precautions I: Contact, Enteric, and Droplets
Contact Precautions:
Contact precautions are the measures taken to prevent the transmission of infectious agents, especially epidemiologically important microorganisms such as MRSA or influenza, primarily transmitted through direct or indirect contact with an...

