CDC FoodCORE Year Seven Cumulative Metrics - Salmonella, Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli, and Listeria (SSL)

Data Report Period: January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017

Ten state and local health departments participate in FoodCORE. Data are only reported when available from three or more centers; ‘n’ indicates the number of centers reporting each metric.

Table showing the Mean (Range) for Salmonella, STEC, Listeria, Shigella, and Campylobacter
Performance Metrics: (See FoodCORE website for complete language and definitions)	Salmonella Mean (Range)	STEC Mean (Range)	Listeria Mean (Range)	Shigella Mean (Range)	Campylobacter Mean (Range)
1a. Total number of isolates and isolate-yielding specimens	1014 (418–1567) n=10	266 (93–797) n=10	24(8–66) n=10	152 (30–317) n=9	456(86–1282) n=8
1b. Number of primary isolates/isolate-yielding specimens	904 (374–1453) n=10	200 (66–417) n=10	19(8–52) n=10	147 (27–303) n=9	444(86–1242) n=8
2a. Total number of preliminary positive clinical specimens	850 (255–1542) n=9	403 (108–1031) n=10	n/a	165 (40–397) n=8	586 (40–1756) n=7
2b. Number; Percent isolate-yielding preliminary positive clinical specimens	742 (255–1500) 89.7% (75%–100%) n=9	236 (68–797) 55.4% (29%–77%) n=10	n/a	98 (13–303) 55% (33%–76%) n=8	407 (20–1077) 75.1%(50%–100%) n=7
3. Median days from isolation/isolate-yielding specimen collection to receipt at PHL	4.4(3–8) n=10	3.6(2–6) n=10	5.2 (2–10) n=10	4(2–8) n=9	3.9 (2–5) n=8
4. Median days from receipt of isolate-yielding specimens at PHL to recovery of isolate	2(0–5) n=8	4(0–6) n=9	1.3 (0–3) n=7	2(0–4) n=7	1.8 (0–3) n=6
5. Percent of primary isolates with serotype information	98.1% (90%–100%) n=10	81.2%(28%–98%) n=10	n/a	99.3% (95%–100%) n=9	98.3%(94%–100%) n=4
6. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) to serotype result	4 (2–9) n=10	3.8 (2–5) n=10	n/a	2.4 (1–4) n=8	2.3(1–5) n=7
7a. Percent of primary isolates with PFGE information	99% (95%–100%) n=10	95.7% (70%–100%) n=10	96%(83%–100%) n=9	48% (0%–100%) n=7	29.9%(0%–100%) n=7
7b. Percent of primary isolates with WGS information	81.3% (27%–100%) n=9	82.1% (33%–100%) n=9	83.1%(27%–100%) n=9	33.3% (0%–100%) n=8	42%(0%–100%) n=7
8a. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) to PFGE upload to PulseNet	4.8 (2–8) n=10	5.4 (3–9) n=10	3.9(2–6) n=9	10.8 (1–57) n=8	9.6(4–27) n=7
8b. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) to WGS sequence being shared	21.4 (9–45) n=7	21.7 (9–40) n=7	15.9(6–38) n=7	27 (10–58) n=7	27.7(10–72) n=7
8c. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) at PFGE lab to upload to PulseNet	2.6 (1–4) n=10	2.4 (1–4) n=10	2.4(1–4) n=9	7.9 (1–45) n=8	3.4(2–6) n=7
8d. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) at WGS lab to upload to sequence being shared	17.7 (4–40) n=7	16.9 (3–32) n=7	13.7 (3–36) n=7	13.4 (5–28) n=7	10.1 (3–27) n=7
9a. Number of reported laboratory confirmed cases	818 (367–1364) n=10	183 (42–341) n=10	18 (6–50) n=10	183 (32–338) n=9	803 (88–1822) n=9
9b. Number of reported probable cases	82 (26–194) n=10	38 (0–190) n=9	n/a	90 (12–294) n=8	392 (0–1387) n=8
9c. Number of reported suspect cases	2 (0–9) n=8	90 (0–170) n=10	n/a	4 (0–15) n=6	n/a
10a.1 Percent of confirmed cases with attempted interview	96.1% (78%–100%) n=10	94.4% (78%–100%) n=10	95.9% (71%–100%) n=10	90.6% (74%–100%) n=8	88.4% (44%–100%) n=8
10a.2 Percent of probable/suspect cases with attempted interview	95.8%(79%–100%) n=10	95.4%(77%–100%) n=10	n/a	78.6%(2%–100%) n=7	86.6% (42%–100%) n=7
10b.1 Median days from confirmed case report to interview attempt	1.3(0–4) n=10	1.3(0–4) n=10	1.7 (0–5) n=10	2.3(0–10) n=8	2.6 (1–5) n=8
10b.2 Median days from probable/suspect case report to interview attempt	1 (0–4) n=9	1.2 (0–4) n=9	n/a	2.8 (0–15) n=8	3(1–9) n=8
10c.1 Median days from confirmed case report to completed interview	2.8 (1–6) n=10	2.5 (1–6) n=10	4.3(1–11) n=10	3.8 (1–14) n=9	4.1(1–9) n=9
10c.2 Median days from probable/suspect case report to completed interview	2.2 (0–6) n=10	2.4 (0–7) n=10	n/a	4.8 (0–20) n=8	4.8(0–11) n=8
10d. Percent of confirmed cases with complete demographic data	91.5% (76%–98%) n=10	90.3% (60%–100%) n=10	94.9%(75%–100%) n=10	89.8% (72%–97%) n=9	83.3%(50%–96%) n=9
10e. Percent of confirmed cases with exposure history	85.7% (78%–92%) n=10	90% (81%–95%) n=10	86.7%(67%–100%) n=10	82.9% (73%–93%) n=9	80.9%(52%–94%) n=9
10e.1 Percent of confirmed cases with full exposure interview	79.5% (45%–97%) n=8	82.6% (54%–98%) n=8	73.1%(0%–100%) n=9	76% (0%–99%) n=7	73.8%(0%–99%) n=6
10f. Percent of confirmed cases with serotype information	96.5% (88%–100%) n=10	89%(62%–100%) n=10	n/a	94.5% (83%–100%) n=8	n/a
10g. Percent of confirmed cases with PFGE information	91.9% (83%–99%) n=10	86.4%(40%–100%) n=10	79.7% (0%–100%) n=10	36.9% (0%–91%) n=8	26.8%(0%–100%) n=8
10g.1 Percent of confirmed cases with PFGE with complete epi data	80.5%(60%–90%) n=10	85.6%(65%–96%) n=10	74.3%(0%–100%) n=10	76.5%(32%–100%) n=8	68.9%(0%–100%) n=8
10h. Reasons for not interviewing cases
10h.1 Number; Percent Lost to Follow-up	81 (31–189) 30% (6%–70%) n=9	13 (0–28) 16.4% (0%–78%) n=9	1 (0–4) 17.3% (0%–67%) n=9	n/a	n/a
10h.2 Number; Percent Refused interview	21 (4–57) 9.7% (1%–29%) n=10	3 (0–8) 6.6% (0%–50%) n=10	1 (0–2) 12.8% (0%–50%) n=10	n/a	n/a
10h.3 Number; Percent Lag time too long	5 (0–32) 2.2% (0%–17%) n=9	0 (0–2) 0.1% (0%–1%) n=8	0 (0–0) 0% (0%–0%) n=8	n/a	n/a
10h.4 Number; Percent Other	25(2–71) 10.1%(0%–47%) n=10	6 (0–23) 14.6% (0%–100%) n=10	1 (0–4) 22.1% (0%–100%) n=10	n/a	n/a
11. Number of investigations	62(38–111) n=10	12(0–23) n=10	2 (0–9) n=10	n/a	n/a
12a. Number; Percent of investigations with routine interview of cases	54 (12–111) 84.6% (24%–100%) n=10	11 (5–23) 89% (26%–100%) n=9	3(0–9) 85.7%(0%–100%) n=7	n/a	n/a
12b. Number; Percent of investigations with supplemental/targeted interviewing of cases	15 (2–29) 26% (5%–54%) n=9	4 (0–17) 30.3% (0%–100%) n=8	1(0–3) 36%(0%–100%) n=7	n/a	n/a
12c. Number; Percent of investigations where an analytic epidemiologic study conducted	2 (0–5) 3.1% (0%–8%) n=10	1 (0–4) 8.3% (0%–24%) n=9	0(0–3) 18.8%(0%–100%) n=8	n/a	n/a
13. Number; Percent of investigations with suspect vehicle/source identified	5 (1–22) 8.5% (2%–26%) n=10	2 (0–10) 14.7% (0%–59%) n=9	0(0–4) 16.6%(0%–100%) n=8	n/a	n/a
14. Number; Percent of investigations with confirmed vehicle/source identified	7 (0–17) 10.6% (0%–18%) n=10	2(0–6) 12.6%(0%–40%) n=9	0 (0–1) 5.5% (0%–33%) n=8	n/a	n/a
15. Number; Percent of investigations with source identified with:
a. Exclusion of ill person(s)	5 (0–16) 6.9% (0%–18%) n=8	2 (0–5) 13.7% (0%–33%) n=7	0(0–0) 0%(0%–0%) n=6	n/a	n/a
b. Remediation or closure	2 (0–7) 3.5% (0%–8%) n=8	1 (0–3) 3.9% (0%–18%) n=7	0(0–1) 1.8%(0%–11%) n=6	n/a	n/a
c. Educational campaign	1 (0–5) 2.8% (0%–13%) n=8	1 (0–9) 10% (0%–53%) n=7	0(0–0) 0%(0%–0%) n=6	n/a	n/a
d. Media/public messaging	2 (0–6) 4.9% (0%–15%) n=8	1 (0–3) 6.3% (0%–18%) n=7	1 (0–3) 22.2% (0%–100%) n=6	n/a	n/a
e. Regulatory action (recall, hold)	2 (0–3) 3.4% (0%–8%) n=8	1 (0–3) 7% (0%–18%) n=7	1(0–3) 22.2%(0%–100%) n=6	n/a	n/a
16. Number; Percent of investigations linked to a restaurant/food establishment with EHA	4(2–8) 12.7%(4%–67%) n=10	2(0–9) 23.1%(0%–100%) n=9	0 (0–2) 7.6% (0%–50%) n=8	n/a	n/a
17. Number; Percent of investigations with food/environmental sample collected for testing	4(1–8) 7.4%(2%–21%) n=10	1(0–2) 8.3%(0%–17%) n=9	1(0–4) 30.5%(0%–100%) n=8	n/a	n/a
18. Number; Percent of investigations where environmental health partners were contacted	8 (4–16) 16% (5%–41%) n=10	3 (0–9) 19.3% (0%–53%) n=9	1(0–4) 30.5%(0%–100%) n=8	n/a	n/a
19. Number; Percent of outbreaks with NORS form completed	8 (1-18) 78.3% (3%–100%) n=10	2 (0–6) 57.5% (0%–100%) n=8	0(0–1) 15.9%(0%–100%) n=7	n/a	n/a

Download Table Cdc-pdf[PDF – 5 pages]

Page last reviewed: April 12, 2019

Content source: National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases (DFWED)