Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T18:15:03.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Observational Study Using English Syndromic Surveillance Data Collected During the 2012 London Olympics – What did Syndromic Surveillance Show and What Can We Learn for Future Mass-gathering Events?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2016

Dan Todkill*
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom Public Health England, Field Epidemiology Service, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Helen E. Hughes
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Alex J. Elliot
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Roger A. Morbey
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Obaghe Edeghere
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom Public Health England, Field Epidemiology Service, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Sally Harcourt
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Tom Hughes
Affiliation:
Royal College of Emergency Medicine, London, United Kingdom
Tina Endericks
Affiliation:
Public Health England, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mass Gatherings and Global Health Security, London, United Kingdom
Brian McCloskey
Affiliation:
Public Health England, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mass Gatherings and Global Health Security, London, United Kingdom
Mike Catchpole
Affiliation:
European Centre for Disease Control, Office of the Chief Scientist, Stockholm, Sweden
Sue Ibbotson
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre Director, West Midlands, United Kingdom
Gillian Smith
Affiliation:
Public Health England, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance, Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, Birmingham, United Kingdom
*
Correspondence: Dan Todkill, MFPH Public Health England Field Epidemiology Services West Midlands 6th Floor, 5 St Philips Place Birmingham B3 2PW, United Kingdom E-mail: dan.todkill@phe.gov.uk

Abstract

Introduction

In preparation for the London 2012 Olympic Games, existing syndromic surveillance systems operating in England were expanded to include daily general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours (OOH) contacts and emergency department (ED) attendances at sentinel sites (the GP OOH and ED syndromic surveillance systems: GPOOHS and EDSSS).

Hypothesis/Problem

The further development of syndromic surveillance systems in time for the London 2012 Olympic Games provided a unique opportunity to investigate the impact of a large mass-gathering event on public health and health services as monitored in near real-time by syndromic surveillance of GP OOH contacts and ED attendances. This can, in turn, aid the planning of future events.

Methods

The EDSSS and GPOOHS data for London and England from July 13 to August 26, 2012, and a similar period in 2013, were divided into three distinct time periods: pre-Olympic period (July 13-26, 2012); Olympic period (July 27 to August 12); and post-Olympic period (August 13-26, 2012). Time series of selected syndromic indicators in 2012 and 2013 were plotted, compared, and risk assessed by members of the Real-time Syndromic Surveillance Team (ReSST) in Public Health England (PHE). Student’s t test was used to test any identified changes in pattern of attendance.

Results

Very few differences were found between years or between the weeks which preceded and followed the Olympics. One significant exception was noted: a statistically significant increase (P value = .0003) in attendances for “chemicals, poisons, and overdoses, including alcohol” and “acute alcohol intoxication” were observed in London EDs coinciding with the timing of the Olympic opening ceremony (9:00 pm July 27, 2012 to 01:00 am July 28, 2012).

Conclusions

Syndromic surveillance was able to provide near to real-time monitoring and could identify hourly changes in patterns of presentation during the London 2012 Olympic Games. Reassurance can be provided to planners of future mass-gathering events that there was no discernible impact in overall attendances to sentinel EDs or GP OOH services in the host country. The increase in attendances for alcohol-related causes during the opening ceremony, however, may provide an opportunity for future public health interventions.

TodkillD, HughesHE, ElliotAJ, MorbeyRA, EdeghereO, HarcourtS, HughesT, EndericksT, McCloskeyB, CatchpoleM, IbbotsonS, SmithG. An Observational Study Using English Syndromic Surveillance Data Collected During the 2012 London Olympics – What did Syndromic Surveillance Show and What Can We Learn for Future Mass-gathering Events?Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(6):628–634.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

(Note: D Todkill and HE Hughes share Joint First Authorship)

References

1. World Health Organization. Communicable disease alert and response for mass gatherings. Technical workshop; Geneva, Switzerland: April 2008. http://www.who.int/csr/resources/ publications/WHO_HSE_EPR_2008_8c.pdf. Accessed September 2015.Google Scholar
2. Olympic Delivery Authority. Transport Plan for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Second Edition. June 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/london-2012-transport-plan-2nd-edition. Accessed September 2015.Google Scholar
3. Brennan, RJ, Keim, ME, Sharp, TW, et al. Medical and public health services at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games: an overview. Med J Australia. 1997;167(11-12):595-598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Jorm, LR, Thackway, SV, Churches, TR, et al. Watching the Games: public health surveillance for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. J Epidemiol Commun H. 2003;57(2):102-108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Severi, E, Heinsbroek, E, Watson, C, et al. Infectious disease surveillance for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Euro Surveill. 2012;17(31):20232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Harcourt, SE, Fletcher, J, Loveridge, P, et al. Developing a new syndromic surveillance system for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Epidemiol Infect. 2012;140(12):2152-2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Elliot, AJ, Morbey, RA, Hughes, HE, et al. Syndromic surveillance: a public health legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Public Health. 2013;127(8):777-781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Health Protection Agency. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Summary Report of the Health Protection Agency’s Games Time Activities. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/london-2012-olympic-and-paralympic-games-summary-report. January 2013. Accessed September 2015.Google Scholar
9. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10). http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed September 2015.Google Scholar
10. International Health Terminology Standards Development Organization. Snomed CT. http://www.ihtsdo.org/. Accessed September 2015.Google Scholar
11. Indig, D, Thackway, S, Jorm, L, et.al. Illicit drug related harm during the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games: implications for public health surveillance and action. Addiction. 2003;98(1):97-102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Kelly, G, Crick, J, Hall, T. Alcohol attendance within the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2013;30(10):873-874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar