Reportable illness

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For notifiable diseases or notifiable diseases is certain transferable infections that a reporting requirement or obligation subject and thus public authorities must be notified. This means that pathogen detection, suspected infection, illness or death due to the diseases specified in the law must be reported to the health department , the canton doctor or the district administrative authority or to higher-level health authorities. Strictly speaking, there are also notifiable or notifiable pathogens for which the evidence / laboratory results trigger a notification or notification requirement.

Knowledge of the occurrence of the disease is a prerequisite for preventing and combating communicable diseases. The treating physicians and the laboratories responsible for diagnostics are important sources. The choice of diseases is determined by the danger of the disease (severity, frequency of a fatal outcome and risk of spread), the need for official reactions and indicators of hygiene deficiencies. The reporting physician and the management of laboratories are obliged to report, but in certain cases also members of other healing or nursing professions or heads of nursing facilities, penal institutions, homes, camps and similar facilities.

Germany

The reporting channels are described in Section 3 of the Infection Protection Act (IfSG) in Germany.

The message takes place:

  • by name (with surname and first name) with data according to § 9 IfSG (initially) to the health department
  • not by name (without the name of the person concerned) with data according to § 10 IfSG (to the health department or directly to the Robert Koch Institute)

Both named and non-named reports must be made immediately , but no later than 24 hours.

A distinction is made between diseases and pathogens. Who has to report depends on what is reported:

  • Notifiable diseases are listed in § 6 IfSG. In the case of illnesses, there is usually an obligation to report to the "diagnosing" doctor .
  • Notifiable pathogens are listed in § 7 IfSG. As a rule, the laboratory management is required to provide evidence of this .

Catching facts for diseases that are not expressly mentioned and evidence of pathogens not expressly mentioned can be found in Section 6 (1) sentence 1 number 5 IfSG and Section 7 (2) sentence 1 IfSG. The number of reportable pathogens is considerably higher than that of the (previously) reportable clinical pictures. This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that collective terms are also used for diseases, but on the other hand, diseases can often only be determined reliably with laboratory diagnostic evidence.

Section 8 IfSG deals with the persons required to report ( those subject to reporting) . In addition to the diagnosing doctor and the heads of the laboratories / medical examination offices, there are also doctors in management positions or the treating doctor. But also lines of pathologies, alternative practitioners and, in the case of rabies and its pathogens, veterinarians.

Section 11 IfSG deals with the forwarding of the data from the health department to the responsible state authority and then to the Robert Koch Institute ( transmission to the responsible state authority and the Robert Koch Institute ).

Based on the authorization under Section 15 (1) and (2) IfSG, the Federal Ministry of Health can amend, in particular add to, the notification requirements under Sections 6 and 7 IfSG to adapt the reporting obligation to the epidemic situation . With the ordinance on the extension of the reporting obligation pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 Number 1 and Section 7 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 of the Infection Protection Act to infections with the novel coronavirus that first appeared in Wuhan / People's Republic of China in December 2019 ("2019- nCoV ") . If the federal government has not done this, the federal states can add to the obligations under Section 15 (3).

Section 34 IfSG deals with bans on staying in communal facilities (e.g. day-care centers) for sick people and those who have left the hospital, as well as the obligation to report or notify the management of these facilities .

§ 6 IfSG Notifiable diseases

For inclusion in the catalog of reportable diseases, the decisive factors were how dangerous a disease is, whether the health authorities should react immediately and to what extent the disease is to be regarded as an indicator of hygiene deficiencies.

According to § 6 IfSG, the following obligations exist for the persons named in § 8 IfSG (in particular the diagnosing doctors):

To be reported by name

Suspicion of illness, illness and death
Illness and death (sometimes discontinuation of treatment)
  • Tuberculosis in need of treatment , even if there is no bacteriological evidence ( Section 6 (1) sentence 1 number 1a letter a IfSG). The health department must also be reported “if people who are ill with pulmonary tuberculosis that require treatment refuse or discontinue treatment” ( Section 6 (1) sentence 2 IfSG).
  • Clostridioides difficile infection with a clinically severe course ( clinically severe course is defined in the double letters to Section 6 (1) sentence 1 number 1a letter a IfSG)
  • subacute sclerosing panencephalitis ( SSPE ) as a result of measles infection. ( § 6 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 IfSG) This report must be made in accordance with § 8 IfSG Paragraph 1 Number 1, § 9 IfSG Paragraph 1 and 3 Sentence 1 or 3.
Suspicion of illness and illness
  • microbially induced food poisoning or acute infectious gastroenteritis
    • if a person is affected who works in food processing companies, kitchens, etc.
    • two or more similar diseases occur for which an epidemic connection is likely or suspected. Such an epidemic connection exists “if it can be concluded from the overall circumstances that the occurrence of the same clinical pictures in different patients is connected with one another” or accordingly if the different cases can medically have a common possible cause.
Suspicion

According to § 2 No. 11 Infection Protection Act, vaccination damage is “the health and economic consequence of a health damage caused by the vaccination that goes beyond the usual extent of a vaccination reaction; Vaccination damage is also present if the vaccination was carried out with pathogens capable of reproduction and a person other than the vaccinated person was harmed "

Injury to a person / touching an animal
  • Injury caused by an animal sick, suspected or suspected of being infected with rabies , as well as touching such an animal or animal body. ( § 6 Paragraph 1 Number 4 IfSG)

Not to be reported by name

  • Two or more nosocomial infections for which an epidemic relationship is likely or suspected. ( § 6 Paragraph 3 IfSG) Such an epidemic connection exists “if it can be concluded from the overall circumstances that the occurrence of the same clinical pictures in different patients is related” or accordingly if the different cases can medically have a common possible cause .

This can be done, for example, in hospitals, nursing homes or medical practices. A nosocomial infection is defined in § 2 number 8 IfSG as “an infection with local or systemic signs of infection as a reaction to the presence of pathogens or their toxins, which is temporally related to an inpatient or outpatient medical measure, if the infection is not already existed before ". How the report is to be made in this case results from sentence § 6 paragraph 3 in connection with § 8 paragraph 1 number 1, 3 or 5, § 10 paragraph 1 InfSG.

Eligibility for diseases not named

According to the catch-all offense of § 6 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 Number 5 IfSG, there is an obligation to report by name for "the suspicion of an illness, the illness and death, in relation to a threatening communicable illness that is not already notifiable according to numbers 1 to 4 ". A threatening communicable disease is defined in the law as “a communicable disease that can cause a serious risk to the general public due to its clinically severe course or the way it spreads” ( Section 2 No. 3a IfSG). A communicable disease is "a disease caused by pathogens or their toxic products that are transmitted directly or indirectly to humans" (§ 2 No. 3 IfSG).

§ 7 IfSG, notifiable evidence of pathogens

Evidence that is required to be reported is categorized according to specific reasons. The obligation to report by name is limited to those pathogens for which immediate action or an immediate all-clear from the health department is required.

According to § 7 IfSG, the following obligations exist for the persons named in § 8 IfSG (especially laboratory managers):

To be reported by name

The direct or indirect detection of pathogens in the case of acute infection (unless otherwise stated)

The direct detection of the following pathogens (§ 7 paragraph 1 no 52 IfSG..):

  • Staphylococcus aureus , methicillin- resistant strains ( MRSA ) - mandatory reporting only for evidence from blood or liquor
  • Enterobacterales with evidence of a carbapenemase determinant (cf. carbapenems ) or with reduced sensitivity to carbapenems except in the case of natural resistance ; Notification is only required in the event of infection or colonization
  • Acinetobacter spp. if a carbapenemase determinant is detected or if there is reduced sensitivity to carbapenems, except in the case of natural resistance; Notification is only required in the event of infection or colonization .

All of the above-mentioned pathogens must be reported in accordance with Section 8, Paragraph 1, Numbers 2, 3, 4 or Paragraph 4, Section 9, Paragraph 1, 2, 3, Clause 1 or 3 IfSG. Section 8 IfSG deals with the persons obliged to report (i.e. those who are obliged to report ). On the basis of § 9 IfSG (report by name) one determines which data are to be transmitted or may be transmitted in the case of a report by name.

Not to be reported by name

Direct or indirect detection of pathogens

The test result (including negative test results) in tests for the direct or indirect detection of the following pathogens

  • Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus ( SARS-CoV )
  • Severe-Acute-Respiratory-Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 ( SARS-CoV-2 )

Trap for unnamed pathogens

According to the general clause or the catchphrase of Section 7 (2) IfSG, evidence of pathogens not mentioned in this provision must also be reported, if, taking into account the type of pathogen and the frequency of their detection, evidence of a serious There is a danger to the general public. ”The person required to report and the manner of reporting follow“ Section 8 (1) numbers 2, 3 or 4, Section 9 (2), (3), first sentence or (3) ”.

Statutory ordinances of the federal government according to § 15 Abs. 1 and 2 IfSG

In Section 15 (1) and (2) IfSG, the Federal Ministry of Health is given the option of changing, in particular adding to, the reporting obligations pursuant to Sections 6 and 7 IfSG by ordinance.

With the ordinance on the extension of the reporting obligation pursuant to Section 6 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 Number 1 and Section 7 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 of the Infection Protection Act to infections with the novel coronavirus that first appeared in Wuhan / People's Republic of China in December 2019 ("2019- nCoV ") . The Second Act for the Protection of the Population in the Event of an Epidemic Situation of National Scope repealed this ordinance with effect from May 23, 2020 and the corresponding reporting obligations were largely incorporated into the Infection Protection Act (in particular as Section 6 (1) No. 1 lit. Section 7 Paragraph 1 No. 44a and Section 7 Paragraph 4 No. 1 IfSG).

An earlier example was the ordinance of the Federal Ministry of Health of March 18, 2016 (IfSG-Notification-Adaptation Ordinance), with which the circle of notifiable diseases and pathogens according to Sections 6, 7 IfSG was expanded on the basis of Section 15 IfSG. The reporting obligations from this ordinance were integrated into the IfSG by the Measles Protection Act and the IfSG reporting obligation adjustment ordinance repealed.

Statutory ordinances and laws of the federal states in accordance with Section 15 (3) IfSG

In Section 15 (3) IfSG, the federal states are granted the right, under certain conditions, to supplement the lists of diseases (Section 6 IfSG) or pathogens (Section 7 IfSG). At least the following states have made use of this: Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia. In some cases, however, these reporting obligations are ineffective if the same or more extensive reporting obligations under federal law already exist (see Section 15 (3) IfSG, Article 31 of the Basic Law: Federal law violates state law ). However, particular attention should be given to the state legal reporting obligations for Borrelioses or the evidence for Borrelia burgdorferi .

Bavaria

In Bavaria, according to the ordinance extending the reporting obligation to other communicable diseases or pathogens, there is a non-named reporting obligation with regard to illness and death

Berlin

In Berlin, according to the regulation on the extension of the obligation to report diseases and pathogens according to the Infection Protection Act, there is an obligation to report by name in accordance with Section 6 IfSG for illness or death

In addition, in Berlin there is also an obligation to report by name for direct and indirect detection of the pathogen (s)

Brandenburg

In Brandenburg, according to the regulation on the extension of the reporting requirement for infectious diseases

in particular, the illness and death must be reported

as well as the direct or indirect proof of

as far as the evidence indicates an acute infection.

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, according to the law for the implementation of the Infection Protection Act, the

Rhineland-Palatinate

In Rhineland-Palatinate, according to the state ordinance on the extension of the reporting obligation for communicable diseases, there is an immediate non-named reporting obligation for the disease and death due to it

Saarland

In the Saarland, according to the regulation on the extension of the obligation to notify for communicable diseases (MPflVO), there is an immediate non-named obligation to report illness to and death by

Saxony

According to Saxony's law, the ordinance of the Saxon State Ministry for Social Affairs and Consumer Protection on the extension of the reporting obligation for communicable diseases and pathogens under the Infection Protection Act provides for extremely extensive reporting obligations. These relate, among other things, to Borreliosis and Borrelia burgdorferi species , but also, for example, to excretors of certain pathogens or to tetanus .

Saxony-Anhalt

In Saxony-Anhalt, additional reporting obligations are regulated in the ordinance on the extended reporting obligation for communicable diseases .

According to the statutory ordinance of Saxony-Anhalt, the following diseases must be reported by name:

Evidence of the following pathogens must be reported under the statutory ordinance of Saxony-Anhalt (with one exception by name):

Thuringia

In Thuringia, additional reporting obligations are regulated in the Thuringian Ordinance on the Adaptation of the Reporting Obligation for Infectious Diseases (Thuringian Infectious Disease Reporting Ordinance - ThürIfKrMVO -) .

§ 1 ThürIfKrMVO extension of the reporting obligation for communicable diseases

You are then required to report the diseases

  • with an obligation to notify by name of the illness and death
  • as well as "the frequent occurrence of similar diseases (from five diseases within 48 hours) for which a common cause is suspected, even if the communicable nature of the disease is not obvious" (§ 1 No. 3 ThürIfKrMVO).

§ 2 ThürIfKrMVO Extension of the reporting obligation for evidence of pathogens

In addition, evidence of the following pathogens must be reported by name

§ 34 IfSG Health requirements for schools and other community facilities

Section 34 (1) - Prohibition of staying and working in communal facilities

In communal facilities such as kindergartens, schools, homes or holiday camps, according to Section 34 (1) IfSG, the prohibition applies if the following infections are suspected or ill

Section 34 (2) - Consent by the health department to stay in communal facilities

is necessary according to § 34 paragraph 2 IfSG for excretors of the following pathogens

The excretor is "a person who excretes pathogens and can thus be a source of infection for the general public without being ill or suspected of being ill" ( Section 2 Number 6 IfSG).

Section 34 (3) - Corresponding prohibition for people sharing a flat with suspects based on a medical judgment

According to § 34 Paragraph 3 IfSG, the above-mentioned prohibition of staying and working in communal facilities applies mutatis mutandis to people living in a shared apartment with people who , according to a medical judgment, are ill or are suspected of the following illnesses:

Section 34 (6) - Notification obligations by the management of the community facility

According to Section 34 (6) IfSG, the management of the community facility has comprehensive notification obligations :

Facts that relate to the facts according to the above paragraphs 1 to 3 are sufficient: "If facts become known that suggest the existence of one of the facts listed in paragraphs 1, 2 or 3, the management of the community facility must Immediately notify the health department in whose district the community facility is located and provide information relating to the illness and person. "

According to the catchphrase of the next sentence, this also applies to unnamed diseases in several cases: "This also applies to the occurrence of two or more similar, serious diseases, if pathogens can be assumed to be the cause."

The management only has no obligation to notify if it has proof of the notification from the doctor (sentence 3).

Web on the left of Germany

Austria

General

There are currently four different federal laws in Austria that regulate the obligation to report (and in some cases also the obligation to notify ) various diseases:

  • the 1950 epidemic law
  • the Tuberculosis Act
  • the 1993 AIDS Act
  • the STD law

In addition, the segregation ordinance deals with the handling of people suffering from such diseases.

Notifiable diseases according to the Epidemic Act

In § 1 para. 1 Epidemics Act those diseases are listed, are subject to a duty of disclosure. A distinction is made here as to whether suspected cases, illnesses and deaths from an illness, illnesses and deaths or only deaths from illnesses must be reported.

According to Section 2 of the Epidemic Act, notification must be made to the respective district administrative authority (in statutory cities the magistrate , in the other districts the district administration ). This must be done within 24 hours after the suspected illness or death has occurred. The name of the sick / deceased person, age and address must be given. The responsible district administrative authority must then immediately contact the respective municipal administration in order to initiate further necessary measures.

According to Section 5 of the Epidemic Act, “surveys on the occurrence of the disease” must be carried out, ie possible routes of infection, the type and origin of the pathogen, other possibly ill persons, etc. must be identified in order to prevent further spread of the disease.

The attending physician, the head of a hospital, “every laboratory that diagnoses the pathogen of a reportable disease”, but also numerous other groups of people, including the apartment owner, are primarily obliged to report this ( Section 3 Epidemics Act).

In addition, the Austrian Epidemic Act contains further extensive regulations on the procedure in the event of notifiable diseases (segregation of sick people, disinfection, barring off apartments, restricting food traffic, handling corpses of victims of infectious diseases, monitoring certain people, closing schools, educational establishments and companies, Traffic restrictions, etc.) that must be met depending on the extent and spread of the disease.

Suspected illnesses as well as deaths must be reported for the following illnesses ( Section 1 (1) Z1 Epidemics Act):

Of the following illnesses, cases of illness and death must be reported, but not merely suspected cases ( Section 1 (1) Z2 Epidemic Act):

In addition, the Austrian Epidemic Act in Section 1 (2) grants the Minister of Health the right at any time to add an ordinance to the list of notifiable diseases for special epidemiological reasons or to meet international obligations. This happened in relation to that

by regulation in January 2020. The duty to report exists for suspected illnesses and deaths due to this virus.

Notification according to the Tuberculosis Act

According to the Austrian Tuberculosis Act, any evidence of a tuberculosis pathogen , any active or contagious tuberculosis disease as well as any death that can be attributed to it must be reported to the responsible district administrative authority. Furthermore, any suspicion of tuberculosis must be reported if the suspect evades the final diagnostic clarification. ( § 3 Tuberculosis Act)

Here, too, the report is primarily to be made by the attending physician, the head of a hospital or the coroner ( Section 4 of the Tuberculosis Act). It must be carried out within three days of the diagnosis ( Section 5 of the Tuberculosis Act). Here, too, the name, date of birth and address of the sick person must be reported in order to be able to initiate examinations on other people who are potentially at risk of infection.

Notification according to the AIDS law

An AIDS disease is defined according to the AIDS Act if there is evidence of an infection with the HI virus and at least one disease indicator ( Section 1 AIDS Act). Such an illness and any death caused by it must be reported ( Section 2 AIDS Act). The report must be submitted to the Ministry of Health in Vienna within one week of the diagnosis. However, only the initials (first letter of the first and last name), gender and date of birth and relevant anamnestic and clinical information are to be transmitted ( Section 3 AIDS Act).

Diseases subject to mandatory reporting according to the Venereal Diseases Act

According to the Austrian Venereal Disease Act, the following illnesses are subject to limited reporting:

Treatment is mandatory for people suffering from these diseases. In addition, there is an examination obligation for people "who can reasonably be assumed that they are sexually ill and are not undergoing medical treatment". The attending physician is only obliged to report to the authorities if there is a fear of the disease spreading or if the sick person withdraws from medical treatment. ( Section 4 in conjunction with Section 1 Sexual Diseases Act)

Weblinks Austria

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the reporting obligation depends on the Epidemics Act (EpG) in connection with the epidemic Regulation and the Regulation of the EDI of the people on the reporting of observations of communicable diseases .

Whoever has to report is based on Article 12 of the Epidemics Act. According to sentence 1, these are, on the one hand, doctors, hospitals and other public or private health care institutions with observations on communicable diseases (especially clinical findings). According to sentence 2, on the other hand, these are laboratories with laboratory analysis results. In addition, according to sentence 5, there are also those who operate ships or aircraft with observations that indicate a risk to public health.

What is generally to be reported in reports on clinical findings is based on Art. 6 Epidemics Ordinance. In addition, there may be additional reports of clinical findings ( Art. 7 EpV).

What is generally to be reported in reports of laboratory analysis results is based on Art. 8 Epidemics Ordinance.

Reports of epidemiological findings are generally based on Art. 9 Epidemic Ordinance.

Listed are the diseases or pathogens that are currently notifiable and what needs to be reported specifically in appendices 1–5 of the FDHA Ordinance on the Notification of Observations of Communicable Diseases in Humans .

Reports of clinical findings

In Appendix 1 of the Ordinance on the reporting of observations of communicable diseases of man are found while the diseases and pathogens, of which findings by doctors, hospitals and health care to the relevant other public and private institutions cantonal medical Canton doctors must be submitted .

Reports of laboratory analysis results

In Annex 3 of the Ordinance on the reporting of observations of communicable diseases of man , the List of laboratory analytical findings, laboratory finds the competent cantonal medical Canton doctors and the Federal Office of Public Health must report (BAG).

Classification of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)

On January 29, the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA) defined the qualified suspicion of an illness and the positive and negative evidence of the "Novel [n] Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" (now: SARS-CoV-2 ) as notifiable. To this end, the FDHA amended the FDHA Ordinance on the reporting of observations of communicable diseases in humans with effect from February 1, 2020.

Weblinks Switzerland

  • Notifiable infectious diseases from the Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, comprehensive with further links, in particular:
    • Notifiable communicable diseases and pathogens. (PDF, 114 kB) Overview of mandatory reporting 2020. Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, Communicable Diseases Department, January 23, 2020, accessed on March 8, 2020 (flyer with tabular overview).
    • Notifiable communicable diseases and pathogens. (PDF, 4 MB) Guidelines for the 2020 notification requirement. Federal Office of Public Health FOPH, Communicable Diseases Department, February 23, 2020, accessed on March 8, 2020 (detailed brochure).
    • Registration forms. Reporting forms for reportable infectious diseases. Federal Office of Public Health, March 13, 2020.;

literature

  • Marianne Abele-Horn: Antimicrobial Therapy. Decision support for the treatment and prophylaxis of infectious diseases. With the collaboration of Werner Heinz, Hartwig Klinker, Johann Schurz and August Stich, 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Peter Wiehl, Marburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-927219-14-4 , pp. 331–333 ( obligation to notify the health authority ).
  • Gérard Krause: Notification of infectious diseases . In: Deutsches Ärzteblatt . No. 104 , 2007, p. A-2811 ( full text with links to illustrations and literature ).
  • Markus Schimmelpfennig: The Infection Protection Act (IfSG) - knowledge for practice . In: RDG . 2008, p. 224-230 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Stefan Bales, Norbert Schnitzler: New Infection Protection Act: Reporting and recording obligation for diseases and pathogens. In: Dtsch Arztebl 2000; 97 (51-52): A-3501 / B-2943 / C-2621. December 25, 2000, archived from the original ; accessed on March 16, 2020 .
  2. ↑ Text of the regulation on the extension of the reporting obligation according to § 6 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 1 and § 7 paragraph 1 sentence 1 of the Infection Protection Act to infections with the novel coronavirus that first appeared in Wuhan / People's Republic of China in December 2019 ("2019-nCoV")
  3. ↑ draft law of the federal government. (PDF, 622 KB) Draft of a law for the reorganization of epidemiological regulations (New Epidemiological Law - SeuchRNeuG). In: BT-Drs 14/2530. January 19, 2000, p. 48 , accessed on March 10, 2020 : “When selecting the communicable diseases to be reported, the following factors are taken into account: * The danger of the disease measured in terms of the severity of the course of the disease, the frequency of a fatal outcome and the acute risk of spreading in of the population, * the need for immediate reactions by the health authorities, * importance of the disease as an indicator of hygiene deficiencies. "
  4. ↑ Draft law of the federal government: Draft of a law for the modernization of the epidemiological surveillance of communicable diseases BT-Drs 18/10938 p. 48 of 88: »With regard to poliomyelitis (letter n - new) the addition of brackets is“ (any acute flaccid paralysis is suspected , except when traumatic) ”no longer applies. The addition served to support the WHO in the implementation of surveillance for acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), which serves as an instrument to detect the interruption of the circulation of polioviruses. This has now been replaced by enterosurveillance to prove polio-free. "
  5. ↑ Draft law of the federal government: Draft law to modernize the epidemiological surveillance of communicable diseases. (PDF) In: BT-Drs 18/10938. January 23, 2017, p. 49 of 88 : “ The previous reporting status for the reporting of outbreaks of nosocomial infections is specified with regard to the number of infections to the effect that two or more nosocomial infections have occurred. The previous term “frequent occurrence” was interpreted as a relative number, depending on the number of patients in the respective facility and the type of illnesses they treated, and could therefore mean a number greater than two in individual cases. In this respect, the current provision means that two nosocomial infections already trigger the reporting obligation if they are in a probable or suspected epidemic connection, an extension of the reporting obligation. ";
  6. ↑ Food-borne outbreaks. In: rki.de. Robert Koch Institute, November 13, 2019, accessed on March 8, 2020 : “Since 2004, data on the importance of food as an infection vehicle in outbreaks has been collected as part of the integrated outbreak recording in SurvNet @ RKI. These data are important for the epidemiological examination of food-borne outbreaks in Germany and for the identification of the resulting need for prevention and research. "
  7. ↑ a b Markus Schimmelpfennig: The Infection Protection Act (IfSG) - knowledge for practice . In: RDG . 2008, p. 224-230 . (225): “In addition, the obligation to report two or more similar illnesses between which a transference connection is likely or can be suspected is also important (Section 6 (3) IfSG). An epidemiological connection in this sense is given when it can be concluded from the overall circumstances that the occurrence of the same clinical pictures in different patients is related to one another. "
  8. ↑ a b Jens Gerhardt: Infection Protection Act . Commentary (=  series of publications ÖDG ). 3. Edition. February 27, 2020, § 6, paragraph 10 ( Google Books [accessed March 15, 2020]).
  9. ^ Nosocomial outbreaks. In: rki.de. Robert Koch Institute, December 7, 2016, accessed on March 8, 2020 : “A nosocomial infection is understood to be an infection that patients acquire in connection with a medical measure, for example in hospitals, care facilities or outpatient Practice has taken place. The risk of the occurrence of nosocomial infections differs depending on the institution or specialty and is related to the type of medical measures and underlying diseases of the patients concerned (so-called risk areas). The highest infection rates can be observed in intensive care units, where patients are exposed to a high risk of infection due to the severity of their illness and the associated intensive and often invasive treatment. A nosocomial outbreak within the meaning of the Infection Protection Act is when nosocomial infections occur in two or more people (in connection with an inpatient or outpatient medical measure) for which an epidemic connection is likely or suspected. [...] "
  10. ^ Peter Häberle: Erbs / Kohlhaas: Criminal law subsidiary laws . Ed .: Peter Häberle (=  Beck's short comments ). IfSG § 6 Rn. 7 (227th supplementary delivery November 2019): "e) catch-all offense (para. 1 no. 5). As a catch-all offense, the regulation establishes a reporting obligation in the event of a frequent occurrence of a threatening communicable disease (for the term cf. § 2 No. 3a). "
  11. ↑ Draft law of the federal government: Draft law to modernize the epidemiological surveillance of communicable diseases. In: BT-Drs 18/10938. January 23, 2017, p. 48 of 88 , accessed on March 15, 2020 : “The previous catchphrase for the reporting obligation in the event of a threatening illness or clusters of similar illnesses with a probable or suspected epidemic connection will be redrafted. It is made clear that the threatening disease must be a communicable disease. The fact of the occurrence of several similar diseases with a probable or suspected epidemic connection previously regulated in letter b can be omitted because this aspect is already taken into account in the definition of the threatening disease. "
  12. ↑ Stefan Bales, Norbert Schnitzler: New Infection Protection Act: Reporting and recording obligation for diseases and pathogens. In: Dtsch Arztebl 2000; 97 (51-52): A-3501 / B-2943 / C-2621. December 25, 2000, archived from the original ; accessed on March 16, 2020 : “For these cases, a catch-all offense has been introduced in § 6 IfSG for the notifiable diseases, which also includes new phenomena that indicate a serious danger to the general public. Examples of this are completely new diseases (such as AIDS or vCJD in the past) or the introduction of known pathogens, for example the Nipah or West Nile virus, to Germany. "
  13. ↑ draft law of the federal government. (PDF, 622 KB) Draft of a law for the reorganization of epidemiological regulations (New Epidemiological Law - SeuchRNeuG) In: BT-Drs 14/2530. January 19, 2000, p. 48 , accessed on March 10, 2020 : “ Re Section 7 Evidence of Pathogens Required to Report Section 7 introduces a more precise notification requirement for direct or indirect evidence of the pathogens mentioned. A distinction is made between named and non-named messages. The mandatory reporting by name is limited to those pathogens, the direct or indirect detection of which requires an immediate reaction from the health department in order to be able to take measures to contain an acute risk of spread or, e.g. B. after prior notification of the suspected acute viral hepatitis by the attending physician, if the laboratory subsequently reports a hepatitis B infection, the measures that are only indicated in the case of confirmation of hepatitis A or E are suspended "
  14. ↑ Justification of the draft law for the second law for the protection of the population in an epidemic situation of national scope on BT-Drs. 19/18967 , p. 55
  15. ^ Peter Häberle: Erbs / Kohlhaas: Criminal law subsidiary laws . Ed .: Peter Häberle (=  Beck's short comments ). IfSG § 7 Paragraph 3 in conjunction with § 6 Paragraph 7 (227th supplementary delivery November 2019).
  16. ↑ Ordinance on the adaptation of the reporting obligations under the Infection Protection Act to the epidemic situation (IfSG-Meldepflicht-Adaptungsverordnung - IfSGMeldAnpV) of March 18, 2016, Federal Law Gazette I p. 515
  17. ↑ Law for the protection against measles and to strengthen vaccination prevention (measles protection law). (PDF) In: BGBl. I 2020 p. 148. February 10, 2020 (Article 3: Repeal of the IfSG reporting obligation adjustment regulation): "The IfSG reporting obligation adjustment regulation of March 18, 2016 (BGBl. I p. 515) is canceled. ";
  18. ↑ Jens Gerhardt: Infection Protection Act . Commentary (=  series of publications ÖDG ). 3. Edition. February 27, 2020, § 6 Paragraph 4a ( [1] [accessed on March 15, 2020]).
  19. ↑ Christian Jäkel: Report from Berlin , PharmR 2019, pp. 686-687 (686), beck-online
  20. ↑ Notifiable diseases and pathogens. State-specific reporting requirements. In: rki.de. Robert Koch Institute, February 1, 2020, accessed on March 8, 2020 : "In addition, there are laws and ordinances in the individual federal states that expand the reporting obligations under the Infection Protection Act (see below for links)."
  21. ↑ Bavarian State Ministry for Health and Care: Ordinance to expand the reporting obligation to other communicable diseases or pathogens. Reporting obligation regulation - MeldePflV. In: gesetze-bayern.de. Bavarian State Chancellery, February 14, 2018, accessed on March 8, 2020 (GVBl. P. 69).
  22. ↑ a b Senate Department for Health and Social Affairs: Ordinance on the expansion of the obligation to report diseases and pathogens according to the Infection Protection Act. (IfSG-MeldepflichtV). In: gesetze.berlin.de. juris GmbH, March 19, 2013 (IfSG-MeldepflichtV, reference GVBl. 2013, 91).;
  23. ↑ Minister for Labor, Social Affairs, Health and Family: Ordinance on the extension of the reporting requirement for infectious diseases. (InfKrankMV). In: bravors.brandenburg.de. Brandenburg, January 23, 2009, accessed on March 8, 2020 ((GVBl.II / 09, [No. 05], p. 83) last amended by Article 2 paragraph 13 of the law of January 25, 2016 (GVBl.I / 16, [No. 5])).
  24. ↑ Landtag: Law for the implementation of the Infection Protection Act. (Infection Protection Implementation Act - IfSAG MV). In: landesrecht-mv.de. June 3, 2006, accessed on March 8, 2020 (reference: GVOBl. MV 2006, p. 524, status: last change taken into account: last changed by Article 4 of the law of 16 May 2018 (GVOBl. MV p. 183, 184 )).
  25. ↑ Minister for Social Affairs, Labor, Health and Demography: State ordinance on the extension of the reporting requirement for communicable diseases. From June 10, 2011 (IfSGMeldpflV RP). In: landesrecht.rlp.de. juris GmbH, accessed on March 8, 2020 (reference: GVBl. 2011, 171).
  26. ^ Ordinance on the extension of the obligation to notify for communicable diseases (MPflVO). From 9 August 2011 reference: Official Journal 2011, p. 276. In: sl.juris.de. Retrieved on March 8, 2020 (amended by the ordinance of September 12, 2016 (Official Journal I p. 856)).
  27. ↑ State Minister for Social Affairs: Ordinance of the Saxon State Ministry for Social Affairs and Consumer Protection on the extension of the reporting obligation for communicable diseases and pathogens according to the Infection Protection Act. Full quote: Ordinance of the Saxon State Ministry for Social Affairs and Consumer Protection on the extension of the reporting obligation for communicable diseases and pathogens according to the Infection Protection Act of June 3, 2002 (SächsGVBl. P. 187), last amended by the ordinance of November 9, 2012 (SächsGVBl. P . 698) has been changed. In: revosax.sachsen.de. Retrieved on March 8, 2020 (version valid from: December 16, 2012).
  28. ^ Minister for Health and Social Affairs of the State of Saxony-Anhalt: Ordinance on the extended reporting obligation for communicable diseases of April 12, 2005. Reference: GVBl. LSA 2005, 200. In: landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de. Retrieved on March 9, 2020 (IfSGMeldpflV ST 2005).
  29. ↑ Thuringian Ordinance on the Adaptation of the Reporting Obligation for Infectious Diseases (Thuringian Infectious Disease Reporting Ordinance - ThürIfKrMVO -) of February 15, 2003. Reference: GVBl. 2003, 107. (As of March 9, 2020, the most recent version of the complete edition available, status: last change taken into account: last changed by ordinance of February 4, 2015 (GVBl. P. 3)).
  30. ↑ a b Entire legal provision of the Epidemic Act 1950 in the current version.
  31. ↑ a b Entire legal provision of the Tuberculosis Act as amended.
  32. ↑ a b Entire legal provision of the AIDS Act as amended.
  33. ↑ a b Entire legal provision of the Venereal Diseases Act in the current version.
  34. ↑ Separation Ordinance. Isolation of sick people, suspected illnesses and contagion suspects and names of houses and apartments, version dated March 6th, 2020. In: RIS, Federal Law Consolidated. January 31, 2020, accessed March 6, 2020 .
  35. ↑ a b Epidemic Act 1950. Consolidated Federal Law, Entire Legal Regulation. In: RIS . June 14, 2018, accessed on March 6, 2020 : “(2) The Federal Minister for Health and Women can, if this is justified for epidemiological reasons or required by international obligations, make other communicable diseases subject to the notification requirement or expand existing notification requirements . "
  36. ↑ 15. Ordinance of the Federal Minister for Labor, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection regarding notifiable communicable diseases 2020. In: Federal Law Gazette for the Republic of Austria. January 26, 2020, accessed on March 4, 2020 : "The obligation to notify according to the Epidemic Act 1950 is subject to suspected illnesses and deaths from 2019-nCoV (" 2019 novel coronavirus ")."
  37. ^ Illnesses subject to notification in Austria by the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection, as of January 2020 (PDF, 4 pages, tabular representation)
  38. ↑ 15. Ordinance of the Federal Minister for Labor, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection regarding notifiable communicable diseases 2020. In: Federal Law Gazette for the Republic of Austria. January 26, 2020, accessed on March 4, 2020 : "The obligation to notify according to the Epidemic Act 1950 is subject to suspected illnesses and deaths from 2019-nCoV (" 2019 novel coronavirus ")."
  39. ↑ § 2 Proof of infection and disease indicators for AIDS.
  40. ↑ Epidemics Act (EpG). Federal Act on Combating Communicable Diseases of Humans of September 28, 2012 (as of January 1, 2017). Federal Chancellery, accessed on March 6, 2020 .
  41. ↑ Epidemic Ordinance (EpV). Ordinance on combating communicable diseases in humans of April 29, 2015 (as of March 1, 2019). Federal Chancellery, accessed on March 6, 2020 .
  42. ^ Ordinance of the FDHA on the reporting of observations of communicable diseases in humans. from December 1, 2015 (as of February 1, 2020). Federal Chancellery, accessed on March 6, 2020 .
  43. ↑ Federal Department of the Interior ( FDHA ): Ordinance of the FDHA on the reporting of observations of communicable diseases in humans: Amendment of January 29, 2020. (PDF, 4 pages) In: bundesrecht.admin.ch. January 29, 2020, accessed March 12, 2020 .