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.