Syndromic Surveillance, Which Is Also

Syndromic surveillance, which is also commonly referred to as clinical surveillance and other names, is the collection of data about a group of patietns relative to one or more possible or verified clinical conditions or diseases whereas standard disease surveillance focuses on analysis of individuals who seek care directly with a healthcare professional.

The advantages of syndromic surveillance are clear and apparent given that patterns and outbreaks are easier to spot when looking at the "big picture" but nothing can or should replace analysis at the patient level, and for a number of reasons (Chang, Zeng & Yan, 2008). Syndromic Surveillance: Pros & Cons There are clear upsides to engaging in syndromic surveillance that are not completely present in looking at patients one by one and/or only in a clinical setting.

Patterns and real-time analysis are much easier in many instances that relying on ad hoc patients because looking only at the patients that actually seek medical care is always going to be an incomplete picture because the patients that think the sickness is nothing to be concerned about and/or cannot afford the medical care they would receive are not going to be inclined to go to the doctor's office unless their situation gets quite dire and/or advanced (Chang, Zeng & Yan, 2008).

Also, some of the tools and methods used to engage and administer syndromic surveillance can touch off privacy concerns because they do not occur in a clinical setting all of the time, because the patient has not given consent or at least the knowledge that they are being watched and/or because looking at people discreetly and/or without their knowledge, even if it can sometimes be useful, is not always effective and can lead to false positives and other problems (Chang, Zeng & Yan, 2008).

This leads to the downsides of syndromic surveillance. First, it can give indications of problems but it cannot replace the one-on-one doctor to patient examination process and its associated discourse which is the only way to verify whether conclusions drawn during syndromic surveillance are even accurate in the first place.

Second, and as noted above, privacy concerns and consent to be monitored in such a way is rarely given and the clarion calls for the greater good are not always enough to satiate people that are concerned about privacy invasion (Chang, Zeng & Yan, 2008). Lastly, syndromic surveillance is really only something that can or should be used in extreme situations such as epidemic/pandemic warnings or actual outbreaks or when biological weaponry or other agents are used to hurt or harm the public.

Just about any other method other than government proactivity (and even that can go too far) is probably overkill much to most of the time (Chang, Zeng & Yan, 2008).