Incorporating scannable forms into immunization data collection processes: a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Individual-level immunization data captured electronically can facilitate evidence-based decision-making and planning. Populating individual-level records through manual data entry is time-consuming. An alternative is to use scannable forms, completed at the point of vaccination and subsequently scanned and exported to a database or registry. To explore the suitability of this approach for collecting immunization data, we conducted a feasibility study in two settings in Ontario, Canada. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Prior to the 2011-2012 influenza vaccination campaign, we developed a scannable form template and a corresponding database that captured required demographic and clinical data elements. We examined efficiency, data quality, and usability through time observations, record audits, staff interviews, and client surveys. The mean time required to scan and verify forms (62.3 s) was significantly shorter than manual data entry (69.5 s) in one organization, whereas there was no difference (36.6 s vs. 35.4 s) in a second organization. Record audits revealed no differences in data quality between records populated by scanning versus manual data entry. Data processing personnel and immunized clients found the processes involved to be straightforward, while nurses and managers had mixed perceptions regarding the ease and merit of using scannable forms. Printing quality and other factors rendered some forms unscannable, necessitating manual entry. CONCLUSIONS: Scannable forms can facilitate efficient data entry, but certain features of the forms, as well as the workflow and infrastructure into which they are incorporated, should be evaluated and adapted if scannable forms are to be a meaningful alternative to manual data entry.

Barriers to the use of reminder/recall interventions for immunizations: a systematic review.

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.

Approaches to immunization data collection employed across Canada during the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccination campaign.

OBJECTIVES: A critical component of the 2009 H1N1 vaccination campaign was the collection of immunization data at the point of care. To meet reporting requirements and to ensure timely availability of coverage information, many jurisdictions across Canada employed new or modified approaches to vaccine data collection. The objective of this study was to observe and characterize the range of influenza immunization data collection approaches used across Canada. METHODS: As part of a multi-stage observational study, the research team visited immunization clinics at which tasks related to data collection and management were observed. Tasks included registration, medical history collection and review, vaccine record-keeping, proof of vaccination preparation, and data entry. Field notes were analyzed in order to understand the data collection mechanisms that comprised each information system as a whole. RESULTS: Data collection mechanisms were grouped into two categories: electronic systems (9/38), in which all data were captured on computer; and hybrid systems (29/38), comprised of computerized and paper-based data collection tasks. Observed systems included stand-alone databases, immunization registries, and electronic health records. Organizations incorporated magnetic card reader technology, telephone registration, and pre-populated fields into data collection approaches. Electronic systems captured a greater number of data elements. CONCLUSION: Canadian jurisdictions employed a range of data collection approaches during the H1N1 vaccination campaign. System characteristics can have important implications for on-site efficiency and organization as well as program planning and evaluation. The systems observed have been described in detail to allow vaccine providers and planners to learn from what has been done elsewhere.

An amantadine hydrochloride dosing program adjusted for renal function during an influenza outbreak in elderly institutionalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that individualized dosing of amantadine hydrochloride, based upon a patient's creatinine clearance, would maintain efficacy against influenza A infection while reducing adverse reactions to the drug. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Residents of two nursing homes with a total population of 301 individuals INTERVENTION: Amantadine hydrochloride was administered prophylactically subsequent to a confirmed influenza A outbreak. The dose was individualized based upon the resident's calculated creatinine clearance. RESULTS: The concentration of amantadine hydrochloride in the circulation at steady-state in patients who had doses adjusted for their estimated creatinine clearance was not different by nursing home or by sex of the resident. The mean concentration was within the 95% CI for the target concentration of 1.6 micromol/L. Side effects were modest and did not require discontinuation of amantadine hydrochloride therapy. Only the presence of concurrent influenza-like illness was significantly associated with adverse events during amantadine hydrochloride therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment of doses for estimated creatinine clearance is feasible in a long term care facility when amantadine hydrochloride is indicated for influenza A prophylaxis. These data form the basis for a definitive study of amantadine hydrochloride efficacy in patients with reduced renal function. Concurrent influenza-like illness is likely to confound attempts to associate adverse reactions to the administration of amantadine hydrochloride therapy.

Outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 related to animal contact at a petting zoo.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cause of an outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 related to animal exposures so that further transmission could be prevented. DESIGN: Description of laboratory investigations and a case control study. SETTING: Agricultural pavilion at an annual fair in Ontario. POPULATION: People with laboratory evidence of E coli 0157:H7 (seven people) and others with diarrhea (155 people) who called the health unit following a media release were interviewed. Animals that were accessed most frequently by the public in the agriculture pavilion were tested for E coli 0157:H7. In the case control study, a case was defined as someone with laboratory confirmed E coli 0157:H7, or someone who developed severe or bloody diarrhea two to eight days after attending the agricultural pavilion at the fair (61 people). A convenience sample of people who attended the agricultural pavilion but did not develop diarrhea was selected as the control group (89 people). INTERVENTIONS: Human and animal E coli 0157:H7 specimens were subtyped. Cases and controls were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Subtyping of the seven human isolates of E coli 0157:H7 revealed five that were of an extremely uncommon phage type. Three samples from goats and one from sheep at the petting zoo in the agricultural pavilion were of this same phage type. The case control study also implicated goats (odds ratio [OR] 3.65; 95% CI 1.63 to 8.52) and sheep (OR 2.94; 95% CI 1.33 to 6.57) from the petting zoo. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this investigation suggest strongly that the goats and sheep from the petting zoo were the source of this outbreak of E coli 0157:H7.