Article

Feasibility of initiating and sustaining registry-based immunization recall in private practices.

Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 48109-5456, USA.
Academic pediatrics 02/2012; 12(2):104-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2012.01.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the feasibility of initiating and sustaining immunization recall by private practices, including the barriers and costs, using a statewide immunization information system (IIS).
Private practices in southeast Michigan were recruited in 2007 to perform IIS-based immunization recalls. Enrolled practices were provided with training and asked to conduct 4 recalls during the course of 12 months of children 19 to 35 months of age. Each practice recorded the time they spent performing recall-related activities; labor costs were estimated. Formative and summative evaluations with semistructured interviews were conducted to identify barriers.
Of 97 eligible pediatric and family medicine practices, 44 declined to participate, 32 did not respond to repeated contacts, and 20 agreed to enroll in the study (21%). A total of 56 recalls were conducted during the study period, with 9 practices completing at least 4 recalls and 7 practices completing 1 to 3 recalls; 4 practices conducted no recalls. Common barriers reported included time constraints and executing all steps of the recalls. Practice costs per patient recalled ranged from $0.05 to more than $6 and were primarily driven by the type of personnel who performed recalls. The costs of creating a roster of current patients comprised nearly one-half of total labor costs.
Few private provider practices that we contacted were willing to participate in this study of IIS-based recall, and less than one-half of enrolled practices completed the desired 4 recall cycles in 12 months. Time constraints and other real-world problems should not be underestimated in determining the feasibility of practice-based immunization recall. Efforts to increase the use of a statewide IIS for recall in private practice settings should emphasize ongoing training and technical support to practice staff. Improved interoperability with electronic health record systems may foster practice-based recall by reducing the labor intensity of roster building and other recall activities.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
97 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess primary care providers' current reminder/recall practices, preferences for collaboration with health departments in reminder/recall efforts, attitudes toward practice-based and population-based reminder/recall, and experiences with a population-based reminder/recall intervention. Providers responsible for making decisions about immunization delivery at all primary care practices that participate in the Colorado Immunization Information System were surveyed. Data collection was preceded by an intervention in which half of 14 counties received a population-based reminder/recall intervention conducted by the health department. Practice staff involved in immunization activities were then selected for semistructured telephone interviews that were based on the location of their practice within specified strata, including whether they were in the intervention counties, urban/rural location, and practice type. A total of 282 (73.6%) of 383 of providers responded to the survey, and 253 who administered vaccines to children 19 to 35 months were retained; 82 staff members at 36 practices were interviewed. Providers' preferences for who should conduct reminder/recall were almost evenly split, with slightly more indicating that it should be conducted by the health department. Cost and feasibility issues were perceived barriers to conducting practice-based recall, particularly among urban practices. Support for population-based reminder/recall was highest among rural practices. Concern about perceived inaccuracies in immunization registry data was the major barrier to conducting population-based reminder/recall. The population-based intervention did not create an undue burden on practices. A collaborative approach to reminder/recall involving both providers and health departments is preferable for many providers and may be a viable solution to the barriers of practice-based reminder/recall.
    Academic pediatrics 01/2014; 14(1):62-70. DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2013.09.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although previous studies have found reminder/recall to be effective in increasing immunization rates, little guidance exists regarding the specific ages at which it is optimal to send reminder/recall notices. To assess the relative effectiveness of centralized reminder/recall strategies targeting age-specific vaccination milestones among children in urban areas during June 2008-June 2009. Three reminder/recall strategies used capabilities of the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), a statewide immunization information system: a 7-month recall strategy, a 12-month reminder strategy, and a 19-month recall strategy. Eligible children were randomized to notification (intervention) or no notification groups (control). Primary study outcomes included MCIR-recorded immunization activity (administration of ≥1 new dose, entry of ≥1 historic dose, entry of immunization waiver) within 60 days following each notification cycle. A total of 10,175 children were included: 2,072 for the 7-month recall, 3,502 for the 12-month reminder, and 4,601 for the 19-month recall. Immunization activity was similar between notification versus no notification groups at both 7 and 12 months. Significantly more 19-month-old children in the recall group (26%) had immunization activity compared to their counterparts that did not receive a recall notification (19%). Although recall notifications can positively affect immunization activity, the effect may vary by targeted age group. Many 7- and 12-month-olds had immunization activity following reminder/recall; however, levels of activity were similar irrespective of notification, suggesting that these groups were likely to receive medical care or immunization services without prompting.
    American journal of preventive medicine 04/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.02.009 · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transitioning between Electronic Medical Records (EMR) can result in patient data being stranded in legacy systems with subsequent failure to provide appropriate patient care. Manual chart abstraction is labor intensive, error-prone, and difficult to institute for immunizations on a systems level in a timely fashion. We sought to transfer immunization data from two of our health system's soon to be replaced EMRs to the future EMR using a single process instead of separate interfaces for each facility. We used scripted data entry, a process where a computer automates manual data entry, to insert data into the future EMR. Using the Center for Disease Control's CVX immunization codes we developed a bridge between immunization identifiers within our system's EMRs. We performed a two-step process evaluation of the data transfer using automated data comparison and manual chart review. We completed the data migration from two facilities in 16.8 hours with no data loss or corruption. We successfully populated the future EMR with 99.16% of our legacy immunization data - 500,906 records - just prior to our EMR transition date. A subset of immunizations, first recognized during clinical care, had not originally been extracted from the legacy systems. Once identified, this data - 1,695 records - was migrated using the same process with minimal additional effort. Scripted data entry for immunizations is more accurate than published estimates for manual data entry and we completed our data transfer in 1.2% of the total time we predicted for manual data entry. Performing this process before EMR conversion helped identify obstacles to data migration. Drawing upon this work, we will reuse this process for other healthcare facilities in our health system as they transition to the future EMR.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2014; 5(1):284-98. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2013-11-RA-0096 · 0.39 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
4 Downloads