Who Calls Communicable Disease Hotlines and What Do They Want to Know?

BACKGROUND: In response to the 2014 importation of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Ebola, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) established hotlines, in partnership with the Illinois Poison Center (IPC), to provide the public with consistent information. To understand future hotline training needs, calls from both hotlines were analyzed.

METHODS: Question content and IPC staff recommendations were recorded in a free-text field for all in-state calls. Data were reviewed and categorized by caller type and question content. Calls routed to IDPH staff were identified.

RESULTS: The MERS hotline received 36 calls in 19 days of activation; 31 in-state calls were analyzed. The Ebola hotline received 664 calls in 30 days of activation; 591 in-state calls were analyzed. On the MERS hotline, 65% (n=20) of calls were from the public and 23% (n=7) from healthcare workers (HCWs). On the Ebola hotline, 77% (n=456) of calls were from the public and 16% (n=95) from HCWs. Other callers included media, business, law enforcement, and schools. Four percent of all calls (n=26) required input from IDPH staff. Questions asked on the hotlines were similar; therefore, call data were combined for content analyses. Among calls from the public (n=476), 55% (n=262) involved general questions; most frequently related to disease symptoms and transmission (n=196; 41%). Situation-specific questions came from asymptomatic callers concerned about travel or traveler-related exposure (n=41; 9%) and callers with questions about travel safety (n=41; 9%). Others called to verify the hotline number (n=32; 7%), ask about policy issues (n=32; 7%), and discuss rumors (n=15; 3%). Five percent (n=24) were symptomatic with no relevant exposure history. Three percent (n=12) were crank calls. Three percent of public callers (n=17) had uncommon questions. Among calls from HCWs (n=102), 28% (n=28) related to facility protocols and guidelines, PPE usage (n=8; 8%), handling and testing of clinical specimens (n=8; 8%), and appropriate public health notification (n=9; 9%). Fifteen percent (n=15) of HCW calls involved symptomatic patients with recent travel and 8% (n=9) were to verify the hotline number. Five percent (n=5) of calls related to HCW concerns about exposure to patients. Nineteen percent of HCWs (n=19) had uncommon questions.

CONCLUSIONS: Communicable disease hotlines in these responses received a variety of questions. Resources can be developed to address commonly encountered questions. Hotline staff training should include exposure risk assessment and frequent review of evolving HCW guidance. A mechanism to route questions to health department staff is needed.