CDC FoodCORE Year Seven Cumulative Metrics – Norovirus, Other Etiology, and Unknown Etiology (NOU)

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 Norovirus, other etiology, and unknown etiology
Performance Metrics:
(See FoodCORE website for complete language and definitions)
Norovirus Mean (Range) Other Etiology Mean (Range) Unknown Etiology Mean (Range)
1a. Number of investigations 102 (7–249)
n=10
19 (4–62)
n=10
17 (0–68)
n=10
1b. Number of foodborne or point-source investigations 18 (5–49)
n=10
10 (0–28)
n=10
3 (0–16)
n=9
1c. Number of person-to-person investigations 76 (2–225)
n=10
8 (0–34)
n=10
12 (0–66)
n=9
2a.1 Number; Percent of investigations with clinical specimens submitted to any lab 59 (7–168)
62.5% (32%–100%)
n=10
17 (4–59)
83.6% (36%–100%)
n=10
8 (0–40)
37% (0%–59%)
n=9
2a.2 Number; Percent of investigations with clinical specimens submitted to PHL 44 (5–109)
49.4% (9%–86%)
n=10
13 (3–38)
70.3% (36%–100%)
n=10
5 (0–27)
28.7% (0%–50%)
n=9
2b. Number; Percent of investigations where clinical specimens were tested for GI viruses at PHL 44 (5–109)
100% (100%–100%)
n=10
6 (0–19)
48.1% (0%–100%)
n=10
5 (0–27)
66.7% (0%–100%)
n=9
2b.1 Number; Percent of investigations where specimens were tested for norovirus by RT-PCR at PHL 48 (6–109)
99.6% (96%–100%)
n=9
5 (0–16)
66.9% (0%–100%)
n=9
5 (0–27)
55.6% (0%–100%)
n=9
2b.1.1 Number; Percent of norovirus investigations with positive specimens sequenced and uploaded to CaliciNet 32 (0–83)
64.1% (0%–100%)
n=8
n/a n/a
2b.1.1.1 Median days from first norovirus detection via RT-PCR to upload to CaliciNet 8.6 (2–20)
n=7
n/a n/a
2b.2 Number; Percent of investigations where specimens were tested for other viruses at PHL 6 (0–31)
22% (0%–100%)
n=10
3 (0–14)
41.9% (0%–100%)
n=10
2 (0–14)
22.4% (0%–100%)
n=9
2c. Number; Percent of investigations where specimens were tested for pathogenic bacteria or their toxins, antigens, or antibodies at PHL 17 (4–55)
62.2% (4%–100%)
n=10
11 (2–32)
75% (25%–100%)
n=10
3 (0–14)
44.6% (0%–100%)
n=9
2c.1 Number; Percent of investigations where specimens were tested using culture-based diagnostics at PHL 10 (0–42)
53.4% (0%–100%)
n=9
9 (1–23)
85.8% (20%–100%)
n=9
1 (0–2)
30% (0%–100%)
n=8
2c.2 Number; Percent of investigations where clinical specimens were tested using non-culture-based diagnostics at PHL 14 (0–46)
60.5% (0%–100%)
n=8
5 (0–26)
33% (0%–100%)
n=8
1 (0–4)
25.7% (0%–100%)
n=7
2d. Number; Percent of investigations where clinical specimens were tested for parasites at PHL 3 (0–14)
18.4% (0%–100%)
n=10
2 (0–11)
12.3% (0%–55%)
n=10
2 (0–14)
16.9% (0%–100%)
n=9
3a. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations with exposure assessments conducted 14 (5–35)
83.6% (39%–100%)
n=10
6 (0–13)
69.4% (0%–100%)
n=10
2 (0–5)
62.7% (0%–100%)
n=9
3b. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations where an analytic epidemiologic study was conducted 7 (2–19)
47.8% (18%–100%)
n=10
2 (0–4)
24.1% (0%–50%)
n=10
1 (0–2)
29.2% (0%–100%)
n=9
4. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations with suspect vehicle/source identified 3 (0–10)
21.3% (0%–43%)
n=10
3 (0–8)
36.3% (0%–67%)
n=10
1 (0–3)
33.6% (0%–100%)
n=9
5. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations with confirmed vehicle/source identified 1 (0–7)
8.3% (0%–29%)
n=10
2 (0–4)
15.6% (0%–33%)
n=10
0 (0–0)
0% (0%–0%)
n=9
6. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations with identified source with:
a. Exclusion of ill person(s) 6 (0–23)
24.6% (0%–66%)
n=9
1 (0–6)
4.6% (0-21%)
n=9
0 (0–2)
1.6% (0%–13%)
n=8
b. Remediation or closure 5 (0–24)
20.2% (0%–69%)
n=9
2 (0–5)
14.1% (0%–63%)
n=9
0 (0–1)
13.3% (0%–50%)
n=8
c. Educational campaign 2 (0–10)
6.3% (0%–20%)
n=9
2 (0–7)
9.9% (0%–33%)
n=9
0 (0–1)
7% (0%–50%)
n=8
d. Media/public messaging 2 (0–8)
6.7% (0%–23%)
n=9
1 (0–2)
4% (0%–17%)
n=9
0 (0–0)
0% (0%–0%)
n=8
e. Regulatory action (recall, hold) 0 (0–2)
3.9% (0%–29%)
n=9
1 (0–4)
5.8% (0%–33%)
n=9
0 (0–0)
0% (0%–0%)
n=8
7. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations linked to a common location where an on-site EHA was conducted 15 (5–33)
88.8% (72%–100%)
n=10
6 (0–11)
68.9% (0%–100%)
n=10
2 (0–12)
55.9% (0%–100%)
n=9
8. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations where food or environmental sample(s) were collected for testing 1 (0–9)
6.3% (0%–29%)
n=10
2 (0–6)
21.9% (0%–50%)
n=10
1 (0–5)
20.1% (0%–100%)
n=9
9. Number; Percent of foodborne or point-source investigations where environmental health partners were contacted 15 (3–36)
84% (43%–100%)
n=9
6 (0–14)
71% (0%–100%)
n=9
3 (0–14)
73.5% (0%–100%)
n=8
10. Number; Percent of outbreaks with NORS forms completed 79 (5–249)
97% (71%–100%)
n=10
14 (0–58)
79.3% (0%–100%)
n=10
15 (1–68)
84.3% (40%–100%)
n=9

Download Table Cdc-pdf[PDF – 3 pages]