This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adams, W. G.
Right arrow Articles by Palfrey, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Adams, W. G.
Right arrow Articles by Palfrey, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Infectious Disease & Immunity

PEDIATRICS Vol. 106 No. 3 September 2000, pp. 489-492

Immunization Entry at the Point of Service Improves Quality, Saves Time, and Is Well-Accepted

Received Sep 29, 1999; accepted Dec 28, 1999.

William G. Adams, William P. Conners, Adriana M. Mann, and Sean Palfrey

From the Division of General Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Objective.  Computer-based immunization tracking is a routine part of many pediatric practices; however, data quality is inconsistent and entry often relies on dedicated data entry personnel and is time-consuming, expensive, or difficult. The purpose of this study was to evaluate data quality, nursing satisfaction, and reduction in documentation burden after the introduction of a point-of-service immunization entry system in an inner-city pediatric primary care center.

Design.  Prospective preintervention and postintervention study.

Methods.  Visit records from all pediatric nonurgent care visits for patients <5 years old were collected during a 2-week period before (preintervention) and after (postintervention) the introduction of a computer-based immunization entry system. Nurses used software designed to allow rapid entry during immunization preparation followed by printing 2 adhesive labels for documentation. Satisfaction was evaluated using an 8-question survey administered 3 months after the intervention.

Results.  One hundred forty-seven (63.6%) of 231 preintervention and 132 (51.4%) of 257 postintervention children received at least 1 immunization (immunized) during the study visit. Gender and mean age were similar for immunized children in the 2 groups. In the preintervention group, 56 (37.9%) of 147 immunized children had at least 1 dose missing (a total of 128 of 343 doses administered) from the immunization tracking database compared with none in the postintervention group. Medical record review showed that 92.6% of preintervention and 91.4% of postintervention children were on-schedule after the study visit. However, missing data lead to the misclassification of preintervention children---only 68.4% were reported by the database to be on-schedule. All 9 nurses reported using the program all the time to enter immunizations, 89% said that the program required somewhat or a lot less time, and 100% strongly recommended continued use of the program. All 9 nurses also reported that they would be somewhat or very unenthusiastic about the system if labels were not available. During the 12 months after introduction of the system, 8273 forms containing immunization information were printed, preventing nurses from having to write >101 000 dates.

Conclusions.  Immunization entry by nurses at the time of immunization preparation improves the quality of tracking data, reduces misclassification of immunization needs, saves time, and can be well-accepted. It is likely that poor data quality in some tracking systems has led to falsely low immunization coverage estimates. Systems such as the one in this study can improve quality and should be integrated into routine clinical practice.  Key words:  immunization tracking, immunization delivery, point of service.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
A. G. Fiks, R. W. Grundmeier, L. M. Biggs, A. R. Localio, and E. A. Alessandrini
Impact of Clinical Alerts Within an Electronic Health Record on Routine Childhood Immunization in an Urban Pediatric Population
Pediatrics, October 1, 2007; 120(4): 707 - 714.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
M. Khare, L. Piccinino, L. E. Barker, and R. W. Linkins
Assessment of Immunization Registry Databases as Supplemental Sources of Data to Improve Ascertainment of Vaccination Coverage Estimates in the National Immunization Survey
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, August 1, 2006; 160(8): 838 - 842.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
C. W. LeBaron, D. M. Starnes, and K. J. Rask
The Impact of Reminder-Recall Interventions on Low Vaccination Coverage in an Inner-City Population
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, March 1, 2004; 158(3): 255 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]