CDC FoodCORE Year Nine Cumulative Metrics Data - Salmonella, Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC), and Listeria (SSL) plus Shigella and Campylobacter
Data Report Period: January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019
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.* All data are cumulative.
| 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 | 1104 (349–1831) n=9 |
293 (74–565) n=9 |
22 (2–53) n=9 |
152 (49–576) n=8 |
439 (72–1179) n=8 |
| 1b. Number of primary isolates/isolate-yielding specimens | 1010 (318–1869) n=9 |
242 (72–498) n=9 |
19 (2–43) n=9 |
143 (41–546) n=8 |
414 (78–1153) n=8 |
| 2a. Total number of preliminary positive clinical specimens | 884 (385–1935) n=8 |
472 (145–1128) n=9 |
n/a | 150 (80–338) n=7 |
622 (81–1553) n=7 |
| 2b. Number; Percent isolate-yielding preliminary positive clinical specimens | 786 (350–1831) 90% (74%–98%) n=8 |
239 (72–565) 53% (22%–77%) n=9 |
n/a | 78 (25–177) 51% (29%–71%) n=7 |
442 (80–1179) 73% (31%–99%) n=7 |
| 3. Median days from isolation/isolate-yielding specimen collection to receipt at PHL | 4 (1–9) n=9 |
4 (1–12) n=9 |
4 (2–8) n=9 |
4 (2–6) n=8 |
4 (2–5) n=8 |
| 4. Median days from receipt of isolate-yielding specimens at PHL to recovery of isolate | 2 (1–3) n=5 |
4 (2–6) n=5 |
1 (0–3) n=6 |
2 (2–3) n=5 |
2 (1–3) n=6 |
| 5. Percent of primary isolates with serotype information | 98% (84%–100%) n=9 |
77% (28%–100%) n=9 |
n/a | 100% (99%–100%) n=8 |
81% (8%–100%) n=5 |
| 6. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) to serotype result | 4 (2–6) n=9 |
4 (1–8) n=9 |
n/a | 2 (1–4) n=7 |
3 (1–8) n=5 |
| 7a. Percent of primary isolates with PFGE information** | 45% (33%–56%) n=8 |
37% (0%–56%) n=8 |
19% (0%–100%) n=7 |
26% (0%–55%) n=6 |
11% (0%–54%) n=5 |
| 7b. Percent of primary isolates with WGS information | 98% (92%–100%) n=9 |
99% (97%–100%) n=9 |
99% (93%–100%) n=9 |
74% (2%–100%) n=7 |
80% (0%–100%) n=7 |
| 8a. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) to PFGE upload to PulseNet** | 5 (2–7) n=8 |
5 (2–9) n=7 |
3 (0–5) n=3 |
7 (6–8) n=4 |
4 (0–6) n=3 |
| 8b. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) to WGS sequence being shared | 8 (4–17) n=9 |
8 (5–13) n=9 |
6 (0–10) n=9 |
9 (5–11) n=7 |
13 (8–21) n=6 |
| 8c. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) at PFGE lab to upload to PulseNet** | 3 (1–4) n=8 |
3 (1–4) n=7 |
2 (0–4) n=3 |
4 (3–5) n=4 |
3 (0–5) n=3 |
| 8d. Median days from isolate receipt (or recovery) at WGS lab to upload to sequence being shared | 7 (3–14) n=9 |
6 (3–9) n=9 |
6 (4–8) n=9 |
7 (3–10) n=7 |
9 (3–20) n=6 |
| 9a. Number of reported laboratory confirmed cases | 864 (303–1686) n=10 |
218 (41–433) n=10 |
18 (2–38) n=10 |
168 (43–581) n=8 |
765 (381–1813) n=9 |
| 9b. Number of reported probable cases | 106 (20–283) n=10 |
196 (59–543) n=10 |
n/a | 157 (23–530) n=8 |
626 (172–1840) n=9 |
| 9c. Number of reported suspect cases | 2 (0–18) n=10 |
5 (0–29) n=10 |
n/a | 1 (0–9) n=8 |
n/a |
| 10a.1 Percent of confirmed cases with attempted interview | 99% (95%–100%) n=10 |
99% (91%–100%) n=10 |
98% (86%–100%) n=10 |
92% (64%–100%) n=8 |
84% (9%–100%) n=9 |
| 10a.2 Percent of probable/suspect cases with attempted interview | 95% (83%–100%) n=10 |
94% (67%–100%) n=10 |
n/a | 85% (9%–99%) n=8 |
84% (7%–100%) n=9 |
| 10b. Median days from confirmed/probable/suspect case report to interview attempt | 1 (0–3) n=10 |
1 (0–3) n=10 |
1 (0–7) n=10 |
1 (0–6) n=8 |
2 (0–5) n=9 |
| 10c. Median days from confirmed/probable/suspect case report to completed interview | 2 (1–5) n=10 |
2 (0–5) n=10 |
3 (1–7) n=10 |
2 (0–8) n=8 |
4 (0–13) n=9 |
| 10d. Percent of confirmed cases with complete demographic data | 94% (88%–100%) n=10 |
93% (81%–100%) n=10 |
95% (79%–100%) n=10 |
90% (71%–100%) n=8 |
73% (0%–98%) n=9 |
| 10e. Percent of confirmed cases with exposure history | 84% (76%–91%) n=10 |
90% (84%–94%) n=10 |
87% (54%–100%) n=10 |
71% (0%–88%) n=8 |
63% (0%–90%) n=9 |
| 10e.1 Percent of confirmed cases with full exposure interview | 83% (27%–99%) n=10 |
86% (39%–98%) n=10 |
70% (0%–100%) n=10 |
79% (0%–100%) n=7 |
80% (0%–99%) n=7 |
| 10f. Percent of confirmed cases with serotype information | 95% (80%–99%) n=10 |
83% (60%–100%) n=10 |
n/a | 92% (74%–100%) n=8 |
n/a |
| 10g. Percent of confirmed cases with PFGE information** | 41% (31%–55%) n=9 |
35% (0%–56%) n=9 |
19% (0%–100%) n=8 |
22% (0%–56%) n=7 |
10% (0%–48%) n=7 |
| 10g.1 Percent of confirmed cases with PFGE with complete epi data** | 83% (61%–95%) n=9 |
88% (82%–96%) n=8 |
40% (0%–100%) n=5 |
82% (71%–94%) n=4 |
61% (0%–92%) n=4 |
| 10h.1 Reasons for not interviewing cases; Number; Percent Lost to Follow-up/Refused Interview |
144 (48–354) 17% (8%–33%) n=10 |
23 (0–60) 10% (0%–19%) n=10 |
2 (0–11) 11% (0%–39%) n=10 |
n/a | n/a |
| 10h.2 Reasons for not interviewing cases; Number; Percent Lag Time Too Long |
2 (0–11) 0% (0%–1%) n=9 |
1 (0–9) 0% (0%–3%) n=9 |
0 (0–0) 0% (0%–0%) n=9 |
n/a | n/a |
| 10h.3 Reasons for not interviewing cases; Number; Percent Other |
26 (0–97) 2% (0%–7%) n=10 |
3 (0–10) 1% (0%–4%) n=10 |
1 (0–3) 2% (0%–11%) n=10 |
n/a | n/a |
| 11. Number of investigations | 56 (22–98) n=10 |
14 (0–40) n=10 |
2 (0–7) n=10 |
n/a | n/a |
| 12a. Number; Percent of investigations with routine interview of cases | 40 (0–84) 72% (0%–100%) n=10 |
13 (0–40) 79% (0%–100%) n=10 |
2 (0–7) 83% (0%–100%) n=8 |
n/a | n/a |
| 12b. Number; Percent of investigations with supplemental/targeted interviewing of cases | 13 (1–26) 24% (2%–58%) n=9 |
4 (0–8) 30% (0%–62%) n=9 |
1 (0–1) 40% (0%–100%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
| 12c. Number; Percent of investigations where an analytic epidemiologic study conducted | 2 (0–6) 15% (0%–100%) n=10 |
1 (0–4) 9% (0%–23%) n=10 |
0 (0–3) 13% (0–100%) n=8 |
n/a | n/a |
| 13. Number; Percent of investigations with suspect vehicle/source identified | 6 (0–18) 14% (0%–45%) n=10 |
3 (0–6) 20% (0%–46%) n=10 |
1 (0–2) 50% (0%–100%) n=8 |
n/a | n/a |
| 14. Number; Percent of investigations with confirmed vehicle/source identified | 8 (0–19) 14% (0%–36%) n=10 |
3 (0–11) 17% (0%–43%) n=10 |
0 (0–1) 13% (0%–100%) n=8 |
n/a | n/a |
| 15a. Number; Percent of investigations with source identified with exclusion of ill person(s) | 4 (0–14) 6% (0%–17%) n=9 |
2 (0–6) 12% (0%–46%) n=9 |
0 (0–1) 5% (0%–33%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
| 15b. Number; Percent of investigations with source identified with remediation or closure | 2 (0–8) 3% (0%–8%) n=9 |
1 (0–3) 6% (0%–23%) n=9 |
0 (0–1) 21% (0%–100%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
| 15c. Number; Percent of investigations with source identified with educational campaign | 2 (0–5) 4% (0%–18%) n=8 |
1 (0–8) 13% (0%–62%) n=8 |
0 (0–0) 0% (0%–0%) n=6 |
n/a | n/a |
| 15d. Number; Percent of investigations with source identified with media/public messaging | 4 (0–12) 9% (0%–27%) n=9 |
2 (0–5) 12% (0%–38%) n=9 |
0 (0–1) 19% (0%–100%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
| 15e. Number; Percent of investigations with source identified with regulatory action (recall, hold) | 2 (0–5) 4% (0%–14%) n=8 |
2 (0–4) 11% (0%–31%) n=8 |
0 (0–1) 22% (0%–100%) n=6 |
n/a | n/a |
| 16. Number; Percent of investigations linked to a restaurant/food establishment with EHA | 5 (1–11) 32% (4%–100%) n=10 |
2 (0–4) 32% (0%–100%) n=10 |
0 (0–1) 5% (0%–33%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
| 17. Number; Percent of investigations with food/environmental sample collected for testing | 4 (0–14) 11% (0%–36%) n=10 |
1 (0–3) 7% (0%–23%) n=10 |
1 (0–1) 33% (0%–100%) n=8 |
n/a | n/a |
| 18. Number; Percent of investigations where environmental health partners were contacted | 9 (1–26) 19% (2%–58%) n=9 |
3 (0–5) 22% (0%–43%) n=9 |
1 (0–3) 44% (0%–100%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
| 19. Number; Percent of outbreaks with NORS form completed | 11 (1–23) 83% (13%–100%) n=10 |
4 (0–11) 70% (0%–100%) n=9 |
0 (0–1) 43% (0%–100%) n=7 |
n/a | n/a |
*CDC FoodCORE centers reported on Year Nine (2019) cumulative metrics in 2020. Performance measures where n<10 may be indicative of limitations in reporting due to restricted staff capacity as state and local health departments prioritized activities related to COVID-19 response efforts.
**Starting in 2018, CDC PulseNet implemented whole genome sequencing (WGS) to replace pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) testing as the national, primary subtyping method for enteric pathogens. Reporting for PFGE metrics (SSL 7a, 8a, 8c, 10g, and 10g.1) became optional in 2019.
Download Table pdf icon[PDF – 5 pages]
Page last reviewed: January 14, 2021