Introduction: The implementation of the infectious disease control law (IfSG) in 1.1.2001 standardised the German surveillance system for notifiable diseases. For management and transmission of reports health departments use either the software programme Surv Net@RKI, which was developed by the Robert Koch-Institut (RKI), or one of five commercially offered disease-reporting software. After more than one year of its existence, we investigated the success of the implementation of the new surveillance system with the aim to identify possibilities for further improvement.
Methods: Based on 2001 data available to the RKI, we evaluated the criteria simplicity (standardisation of legal regulation and of software systems), acceptability (number of reporting regional counties), time (period from data entry at the health department to entry at the RKI) and data quality (information on immunisation status among reports of hepatitis A cases).
Results: For electronic processing 5 versions of Surv Net@RKI and 47 versions of the 5 commercial products are used. Additional rules of individual states expand the legal obligation for notification of the IfSG, by adding new diseases, different definitions or different reporting channels. Within the first quarter after implementation of the IfSG, 393 (90 %) of the 425 counties transmitted data weekly. The median transmission time from data entry at the health department and entry at the RKI was 5 to 7 days after the fourth reporting week. The proportion of hepatitis A case reports with information on immunisation status was 58 % (1323 of 2277); among the 1052 reports by health departments using Surv Net@RKI the proportion was 82 % (n = 858); among the 1225 reports from health departments using other programmes the proportion was 38 %.
Conclusion: Implementation of the new surveillance system is successful. Electronic data systems should be standardised to improve data quality and simplicity. The deadlines for transmission should be shortened to allow earlier detection and control of multi-state outbreaks. State-specific rules on notifiable diseases should be standardised to avoid conflicting or redundant reporting channels.