Table 2

Comments from clinicians on the APSU mailing list in response to the question: “Any other criticisms or suggestions for improving the APSU?”

Keep up the good work5221  
Time delay between notification of a case to the APSU and subsequent contact for collection of further clinical information is a burden and may compromise validity of data156  
Data collection is a burden; investigators should be more responsible for extracting individual patient data135  
Acknowledgment of the contribution of reporting clinicians should have more prominence in publications emanating from the APSU or studies conducted through it125  
Mailing should be less frequent than monthly94  
Problems with physician recall might affect data validity83  
There should be more feedback from the APSU regarding its findings, distribution of continuing education type material, and objective evidence of its value. Request for more publications in peer reviewed journals62  
Some common conditions should be included on the monthly card62  
There is potential for under-reporting by some clinicians because of assumption in some cases that others will report 52  
Keep surveillance of conditions to defined length of time and cease surveillance after predefined objective is reached. Include more conditions of public health relevance52  
Disagreement with case definition or diagnostic terminology; suggest more involvement of related subspecialists in development of case definition42  
The APSU is a complete waste of time and money42  
Suggest ongoing monitoring of what is being reported monthly so that relevant trends (such as early epidemic) can be identified31  
Amount of clinical detail requested following a positive report has discouraged further reporting (includes request for stool samples)31  
Concern that access to or relevance of the APSU as a research tool is limited to individuals based at university teaching hospitals31  
No follow up was requested on cases reported to the APSU31  
  • 2-150 248 of 766 respondents provided comments; the proportion of the 248 who provided comments is shown. Some respondents provided more than one comment. Comments are summarised, in broad categories, in rank order of frequency.