FluAlert: a qualitative evaluation of providers' desired characteristics and concerns regarding computerized influenza vaccination alerts.

Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.93). 01/2011; 52(3-4):274-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To explore pediatric providers' perceived barriers to influenza vaccine delivery, and desired characteristics and potential concerns regarding an influenza vaccine alert integrated into the electronic health record (EHR).
Four focus groups with providers (n=21) and five individual interviews with practice leaders in an urban, pediatric primary care network affiliated with an academic medical center in New York City were conducted. Data were collected during the 2009-10 influenza season and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Participants identified several barriers to influenza vaccine delivery, including remembering to vaccinate during sick visits, need to review multiple sources of immunization information, time shortages and inadequate staffing. They felt that an alert could help many of these challenges. They desired the following alert characteristics: 1) alerting providers early in the visit, 2) accurately determining patients' vaccine status by merging multiple sources of immunization information, 3) facilitating vaccine ordering, and 4) generating appropriate documentation in the EHR when vaccines were refused or otherwise not given. Potential concerns regarding the alert included reliability and accuracy of alert, workflow interruptions and forced actions.
This study highlights providers' interest in a well-integrated, accurate alert that streamlines assessment of vaccination eligibility, ordering and documentation without impeding work-flow.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Primary health care in industrialized countries faces major challenges due to demographic changes, an increasing prevalence of chronic diseases and a shortage of primary care physicians. One approach to counteract these developments might be to reduce primary care physicians' workload supported by the use of health information technology (HIT) and non-physician practice staff. In 2009, the U.S. Commonwealth Fund conducted an international survey of primary care physicians which the present secondary descriptive analysis is based on. The aim of this analysis was twofold: First, to explore to what extend German primary care physicians already get support by HIT and non-physician practice staff, and second, to show possible future perspectives. METHODS: The CWF questionnaire was sent to a representative random sample of 1,500 primary care physicians all over Germany. The data was descriptively analyzed. Group comparisons regarding differences in gender and age groups were made by means of Chi Square Tests for categorical variables. An alpha-level of p < 0.05 was used for statistical significance. RESULTS: Altogether 715 primary care physicians answered the questionnaire (response rate 49%). Seventy percent of the physicians use electronic medical records. Technical features such as electronic ordering and access to laboratory parameters are mainly used. However, the majority does not routinely use technical functions for drug prescribing, reminder-systems for guideline-based interventions or recall of patients. Six percent of surveyed physicians are able to transfer prescriptions electronically to a pharmacy, 1% use email communication with patients regularly. Seventy-two percent of primary care physicians get support by non-physician practice staff in patient care, mostly in administrative tasks or routine preventive services. One fourth of physicians is supported in telephone calls to the patient or in patient education and counseling. CONCLUSION: Within this sample the majority of primary care physicians get support by HIT and non-physician practice staff in their daily work. However, the potential has not yet been fully used. Supportive technical functions like electronic alarm functions for medication or electronic prescribing should be improved technically and more adapted to physicians' needs. To warrant pro-active health care, recall and reminder systems should get refined to encourage their use. Adequately qualified non-physician practice staff could play a more active role in patient care. Reimbursement should not only be linked to doctors', but also to non-physician practice staff services.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 08/2012; 12(1):81. · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although many studies have demonstrated the benefits of reminder/recall (RR) measures to address patient under-immunization and improve immunization coverage, they are not widely implemented by healthcare providers. We identified providers' perceived barriers to their use from existing literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of relevant articles published in English between January 1990 and July 2011 that examined the perceptions of healthcare providers regarding barriers to tracking patient immunization history and implementing RR interventions. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Academic Search Premier, and PsychINFO. Additional strategies included hand-searching the references of pertinent articles and related reviews, and searching keywords in Google Scholar and Google. RESULTS: Ten articles were included; all described populations in the United States, and examined perceptions of family physicians, pediatricians, and other immunization staff. All articles were of moderate-high methodological quality; the majority (n=7) employed survey methodology. The most frequently described barriers involved the perceived human and financial resources associated with implementing an RR intervention, as well as low confidence in the accuracy of patient immunization records, given the lack of data sharing between multiple immunization providers. Changes to staff workflow, lack of appropriate electronic patient-tracking functionalities, and uncertainty regarding the success of RR interventions were also viewed as barriers to their adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Although transitioning to electronic immunization records and registries should facilitate the implementation of RR interventions, numerous perceived barriers must still be overcome before the full benefits of these methods can be realized.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 12/2012; 12(1):145. · 1.50 Impact Factor