How much does a regional immunization registry increase documented immunization rates at primary care sites in rural colorado?

Childhood Vaccination Practices and Parental Hesitancy Barriers in Rural and Urban Primary Care Settings

The purpose of our study was to identify primary care providers' (PCPs') practices in promoting childhood vaccination and their perceptions regarding barriers to vaccination in a primarily rural state. In January-May 2022, we conducted a mail and online survey of PCPs across Montana (n = 829). The survey included modules on routine immunizations in children 0-2 years old and COVID-19 vaccination in children 5-17 years old. The survey response rate was 36% (298/829). We categorized PCPs as working in rural (n = 218) or urban areas (n = 80), based on Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. We then compared responses between rural and urban PCPs using chi-square tests. Urban PCPs (90-94%, depending on vaccine) stocked routinely recommended vaccines more frequently than rural PCPs (71-84%), but stocked the COVID-19 vaccine less often than rural PCPs (44% vs. 71%, respectively, p < 0.001). A higher percentage of rural providers reported parental beliefs that vaccine-preventable diseases are not severe enough to warrant vaccination (48% vs. 31%, p = 0.01) and concerns that vaccination will weaken their child's immune system (29% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). More rural (74%) compared to urban (59%) PCPs identified a social media campaign from local health departments promoting early childhood vaccinations as an effective strategy to increase childhood vaccination rates (p = 0.01). We identified key differences in some childhood vaccination practices and barriers between rural and urban PCPs. Interventions to increase rural vaccination rates could include increasing the number of providers stocking all recommended vaccines, identifying strategies to address parents' concerns regarding vaccine necessity, and collaborations with public health departments.

Barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural areas of the United States: a systematic review of the literature

•

Early childhood vaccination coverage is low in rural areas of the United States.

•

Reminder-recall & positive family-provider relationships facilitate vaccine uptake.

•

Parental hesitancy is a barrier to early childhood vaccination in the rural U.S.

•

Vaccine referrals & distance to providers are also rural-specific barriers.

•

To increase vaccine coverage, interventions across rural populations are needed.

Early childhood vaccination rates are lower in rural areas of the U.S. compared with suburban and urban areas. Our aim was to identify barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural U.S. communities. We completed a systematic review of original research conducted in the U.S. between January 1, 2000-July 25, 2021. We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We included studies that examined barriers to and facilitators of routine immunizations in children <36 months old in rural areas. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we reported studies’ methodologies and targeted populations, definitions of rurality, and common themes across studies that reflected barriers to or facilitators of vaccination. Ultimately, 17 papers met inclusion criteria for review. The majority of studies (10/17) were conducted within one U.S. state, and the same number (10/17) were conducted prior to 2005. Facilitators of vaccine uptake in rural communities identified across studies included reminder/recall systems and parents’ relationships with providers. Parental hesitancy, negative clinic experiences, referrals outside of primary care settings, and distance to providers were identified as barriers to vaccination in rural settings. This review revealed a limited scope of evidence on barriers to and facilitators of early childhood immunization in rural communities. More investigations of the causes of low vaccine coverage and the effectiveness of interventions for increasing vaccine uptake are urgently needed in rural pediatric populations to address persistent rural–urban immunization disparities.

Logistical and structural challenges are the major obstacles for family medicine physicians' ability to administer adult vaccines

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to characterize the vaccination practices and challenges of family medicine physicians in Los Angeles County, California.

METHODS

The Los Angeles Academy of Family Physicians (LA AFP) sent out electronic surveys to all of their active members (N = 1121) between December 2017 and January 2018, and asked them to answer questions about themselves, their practice, their patient population, and their immunization practices and challenges. We then analyzed the results through basic statistical calculations and Pearson's chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Seventy-four people (6.6%) responded to the survey, and 75% of responders stated that they administer all Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended vaccines. The lowest vaccine administration rates were for the high-dose influenza vaccine, which 66.2% (n = 49) of respondents reported to administer, followed by the meningococcal B vaccine (68.9%; n = 51). The respondents who belonged to practices with more than 11 providers, were part of a large hospital or healthcare system, had electronic medical records (EMRs), and used the California Immunization Registry (CAIR) were more likely to report to vaccinate. The number one responding physician-reported challenge to vaccination was limited time and resources to address patient resistance followed by vaccine cost and lack of infrastructure to store vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, structural and logistical challenges appeared to make the biggest impact on adult vaccination for the responding family medicine physicians. Solutions addressing these challenges will help improve the adult immunization rates.

Potential Strategies to Achieve Universal Influenza Vaccination for Children: Provider Attitudes in Two States

OBJECTIVE

Childhood influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Provider perceptions on strategies to achieve universal vaccination are needed. We assessed the perceptions and attitudes of primary care providers across 2 states regarding 2 strategies to potentially bolster rates: centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R), such as reminder/recall (R/R) notices from state immunization registries, and influenza vaccination by complementary community vaccinators (CCVs), such as retail pharmacies, schools, and health departments.

METHODS

We sent a mailed survey to a representative sample of providers across Colorado and New York. Questions addressed R/R activities for influenza vaccine, preferences and attitudes about the health department sending C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine, and attitudes about CCVs. Bivariate analyses assessed provider perceptions and compared perceptions by state.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 56% (n = 590/1052). Twenty-two percent of providers in Colorado and 33% in New York performed practice-based R/R for all patients during the 2015-16 influenza season. Eighty-one percent of providers in both states preferred the health department or had no preference for who sent C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine to their patients; most preferred to include their practice names on C-R/R messages. Many providers in both Colorado (75%) and New York (46%, P < .001) agreed that their patients like the option of having CCVs where children can receive influenza vaccine. Some providers expressed concerns regarding potential loss of income and/or difficulty documenting receipt of influenza vaccine at CCVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most providers support C-R/R, and many support CCVs to increase influenza vaccination rates. Collaborations between traditional primary care providers and CCVs might boost coverage.

Novel immunization reminder/recall approaches: rural and urban differences in parent perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the following among parents of young children: (1) preferences about the source of immunization reminder/recall (R/R) messages, (2) the degree of acceptability of different R/R modalities, and (3) factors that influence preferences, including rural and urban characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among parents of children 19 to 35 months old who needed ≥1 immunization according to the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). Equal numbers of urban and rural respondents were randomly selected. Up to 4 surveys were mailed to each parent who had a valid address.

RESULTS

After removing invalid addresses, the response rate was 55% (334 of 607). Half of parents (49.7%) had no preference about whether the public health department or their child's doctor sent reminders. Urban parents were more likely to prefer R/R come from their child's doctor (46.7%) compared to rural parents (33.7%), P = .003. Mail was the preferred R/R method (57.7%), then telephone (17.0%), e-mail (12.7%), and text message (10.7%). Although not preferred, 60.1% reported it would be acceptable to receive R/R by e-mail and 46.2% by text message. Factors associated with preferring to receive R/R from their child's doctor were urban residence and educational level of college graduate or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

A large portion of parents are willing to be reminded about vaccinations by their health department rather than their child's provider and via novel modalities, such as e-mail or text messaging. Urbanicity and higher educational level were associated with preferring that R/R come from a provider.

Provider attitudes toward public-private collaboration to improve immunization reminder/recall: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Effects of automated immunization registry reporting via an electronic health record deployed in community practice settings

BACKGROUND

Among the expected benefits of electronic health records (EHRs) is increased reporting of public health information, such as immunization status. State and local immunization registries aid control of vaccine-preventable diseases and help offset fragmentation in healthcare, but reporting is often slow and incomplete. The Primary Care Information Project (PCIP), an initiative of the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, has implemented EHRs with immunization reporting capability in community settings.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To evaluate the effect of automated reporting via an EHR on use and efficiency of reporting to the NY Citywide Immunization Registry, we conducted a secondary analysis of 1.7 million de-identified records submitted between January 2007 and June 2011 by 217 primary care practices enrolled in PCIP, pre and post launch of automated reporting via an EHR. We examined differences in records submitted per day, lag time, and documentation of eligibility for subsidized vaccines.

RESULTS

Mean submissions per day did not change. Automated submissions of new and historical records increased by 18% and 98% respectively. Submissions within 14 days increased from 84% to 87%, and within 2 days increased from 60% to 77%. Median lag time decreased from 13 to 10 days. Documentation of eligibility decreased. Results are significant at p<0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvements in registry use and efficiency of reporting were found after launch of automated reporting via an EHR. A decrease in eligibility documentation was attributed to EHR workflow. The limitations to comprehensive evaluation found in these data, which were extracted from a registry initiated prior to widespread EHR implementation suggests that reliable evaluation of immunization reporting via the EHR may require modifications to legacy registry databases.

A brief review of vaccination coverage in immunization registries

Immunization registries are effective electronic tools for assessing vaccination coverage, but are only as good as the information reported to them. This review summarizes studies through August 2010 on vaccination coverage in registries and identifies key characteristics of successful registries. Based on the current state of registries, paper-based charts combined with electronic registry reporting provide the most cohesive picture of coverage. To ultimately supplant paper charts, registries must exhibit increased coverage and participation.

Perceived frequency and impact of missing information at pediatric emergency and general ambulatory encounters

OBJECTIVE

To document the perceived frequency, type, and impact of unavailable ("missing") clinical information during pediatric emergency and general ambulatory encounters.

METHODS

This prospective cohort set in the Emergency Department and General Ambulatory Pediatric Clinic at The Children's Hospital, Aurora, CO, assessed pediatric attending physician perceptions regarding missing information at emergency and general ambulatory encounters. The main outcome measures were the frequency of perceived missing information; its presumed location; time spent seeking; and the perceived effects on resource utilization and overall quality of care.

RESULTS

Pediatric physicians reported missing information for 2% of emergency and 22% of general ambulatory encounters. Types of missing information at general ambulatory visits included immunization (34% of types), general past medical (29%), and disease or visit specific histories (13%). Missing information at ambulatory visits was sought 20% of the time, obtained 4% of the time, and rated "somewhat or very important for today's care" (73% of the time) and "somewhat or very important for future care" (84% of the time). For encounters with unattained missing information, physicians reported adverse affects on the efficiency of the visit (64%), physician's confidence in care (33%), patient/family satisfaction (17%), disposition decisions (8%), and recommended additional treatment (38%), laboratory studies (16%), and imaging (12%). For 57% of encounters with missing information, physicians perceived an adverse effect on overall quality of care. Missing information was associated with not having a primary care visit at TCH within 12 months of the encounter, (OR 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7, 4.5).

CONCLUSION

Pediatric physicians more commonly experience missing information at general ambulatory visits than emergency visits and report that missing information adversely impacts quality, efficiency, their confidence in care, patient and family satisfaction, and leads to potentially redundant resource utilization.

How complete are immunization registries? The Philadelphia story

OBJECTIVE

To assess accuracy and completeness of Philadelphia, Pa, registry data among children served by providers in areas at risk for underimmunization.

METHODS

Philadelphia's Department of Public Health selected a simple random sample of 45 children age 19-35 months (or all children age 19-35 months if there were <45 children in the practice) from each of 30 private practices receiving government-funded vaccine and located in zip codes where children are at risk for underimmunization. Chart and registry data were compared with determine the proportion of children missing from the registry and assess differences in immunization coverage.

RESULTS

Of 620 children reviewed, 567 (92%) were in the registry. Significant differences (P < .05) were observed in immunization coverage for 4 diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccinations, 3 polio vaccinations, 1 measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and 3 Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccinations between the chart (80% coverage) and registry (62% coverage). Providers submitting electronic medical records or directly transferring electronic data to the registry had significantly more children in the registry and higher registry-reported immunization coverage than those whose data were entered from billing records or log forms. All practice types experienced difficulties in transferring complete data to the registry.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 92% of study children were in the registry, immunization coverage was significantly lower when registry data were compared with chart data. Because electronic medical records and direct electronic data transfer resulted in more complete registry data, these methods should be encouraged in linking providers with immunization registries.

Hepatitis B vaccination rate of homeless children in Baltimore

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the hepatitis B vaccination rate in homeless children 2 to 18 years old living in Baltimore City.

METHODS

During a 21-month period, 250 children from homeless shelters were enrolled.

RESULTS

The percent of children who had received 3 or more doses of hepatitis B vaccine was inversely related to age; 90% in 2- to 5-year-olds and 29% in 13- to 18-year-olds (P<0.0001). Seventy percent of 2- to 5-year-olds had at least some of their vaccine history recorded in the Baltimore Immunization Registry Program but the history was complete in only half. Forty-two percent of 13- to 18-year-olds had no hepatitis B vaccine doses recorded in any source; 49 per cent of 10- to 18-year-olds were either not immunized or had received only one hepatitis B vaccine dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatitis B vaccine coverage is high in homeless children up to 9 years of age, whereas the majority of homeless children 10 years of age and older are unprotected against hepatitis B virus infection. Tracking the vaccine records in homeless children is labor intensive. Better public health strategies to deliver hepatitis B vaccine to older homeless children are urgently needed.

Acceptance and timeliness of standard vaccination in children with chronic neurological deficits in north-western Switzerland

There are no special recommendations for basic vaccinations in patients with chronic neurological deficits distinct from the nationwide advocated schedule in Switzerland. Reports describing adverse neurological events possibly related to vaccinations have attracted public attention. It is unclear if patients with chronic neurological deficits are more reluctantly vaccinated compared to healthy children. We therefore investigated the acceptance of vaccinations in such patients and healthy controls in a retrospective case-control study. At the University Children's Hospital, Basel, Switzerland we investigated 100 patients with chronic neurological deficits and 200 age-matched healthy controls regarding the issue of vaccination rates and ages. The total number of administered vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), mumps, measles, rubella and hepatitis B were significantly lower in patients compared to healthy controls ( P < 0.01 for each of the respective vaccines). Patients had an increased risk to receive the third pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccinations (relative risks (RR) for late vaccination 1.53, 1.53, and 1.54 respectively, P < 0.01 for all comparisons), the second (RR = 1.60, P < 0.05) and third Hib vaccinations (RR = 1.52, P < 0.05), and the third polio vaccination (RR = 1.43, P < 0.05) later than controls.

CONCLUSION

Children with chronic neurological deficits received fewer vaccinations than healthy controls. In addition, patients received vaccinations later than healthy children. Hence, it may be assumed that children with chronic neurological deficits are at an increased risk to acquire preventable infections. Therefore, vaccination should be promoted as part of the consultation during a routine appointment with the specialist.

Provider Adoption of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine and the Impact of Vaccine Shortages

OBJECTIVES

To 1) determine the factors associated with provider acceptance of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 2) describe how providers prioritize pneumococcal conjugate vaccine during shortages.

DESIGN/METHODS

During April-November 2002, we conducted a mailed survey of rural and urban Colorado practitioners who provided routine pediatric immunizations. Three groups were surveyed: 1) all immunization providers (n = 51) in 2 geographically large rural areas, identified through a regional immunization registry; 2) all providers (n = 61) from private pediatric practices in metropolitan Denver that were actively participating in the same registry; and 3) all family physicians (n = 244) from the same urban areas as the pediatric practices.

RESULTS

Response rate was 60%. Provider adoption of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was strong: 66% of urban family physicians, 84% of rural providers, and 98% of urban pediatric providers always recommended pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to healthy children < or = 23 months old when vaccine supplies were adequate. In multivariate analysis, vaccine nonadopters were significantly more likely than adopters to report financial barriers to vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 3.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58, 6.35) and concerns about vaccine safety (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.37, 8.26). Eighty-nine percent of respondents had encountered pneumococcal conjugate vaccine shortages. During shortages, children <5 years old with a chronic medical condition were considered the highest priority for vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

While provider acceptance of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine appears high, concerns about vaccine safety, cost, and availability exist, and these concerns will need to be addressed to maximize prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease in children.

Quality improvement in immunization delivery following an unsuccessful immunization recall

OBJECTIVES

Within a clinic serving disadvantaged children, 1) to evaluate a multifaceted quality improvement (QI) project to improve immunization (IZ) up-to-date (UTD) rates and 2) to assess the efficacy of IZ reminder/recall performed following QI.

METHODS

A year-long QI project followed by a trial of reminder/recall. QI interventions were targeted at previously identified barriers to IZ and were designed specifically to improve the efficacy of reminder/recall. QI interventions were designed to 1) increase the use of medical record releases to document IZs received elsewhere; 2) improve the accuracy of parental contact information; and 3) reduce missed opportunities by utilizing chart prompts, provider education, and provider reminders. Following QI, we conducted a randomized trial of reminder/recall.

RESULTS

UTD rates for 7-11 month olds increased from 21% before the QI project to 52% after (P <.0001); rates for 12-18 month olds increased from 16% before QI to 44% after (P <.0001); 19-25 month olds 18% before to 33% after (P <.001). After QI, an average of 61 records per month were updated with IZs received elsewhere. However, the accuracy of parental contact information worsened (29% unreachable before QI vs 44% after, P <.001) and missed opportunities did not improve (8% before vs 6% after, P = not significant [NS]). A subsequent trial of reminder/recall did not increase UTD rates, with 17% of recalled children brought UTD vs 16% of controls (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinic-based QI increased documented UTD rates in a disadvantaged patient population. However, IZ reminder/recall did not further increase UTD rates above the rates achieved by the QI process.

The regional immunization registry as a public health tool for improving clinical practice and guiding immunization delivery policy

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the distribution of immunization records among 3 health care delivery sectors and the impact of a regional immunization registry on "up to date" rates.

METHODS

Immunization registry records in 2 regions were categorized as having originated in private practices, community health centers, or public health clinics. "Up to date" rates were calculated after we sequentially added immunization records from the 3 sectors.

RESULTS

The percentage of children with immunizations documented in multiple sectors increased with age from 7 to 24 months, and children who were seen in multiple sectors were more likely to be up to date. There were relative increases in "up to date" rates of 50% for children aged 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The regional immunization registry is a powerful public health tool for increasing documented "up to date" rates and providing insights into patterns of immunization delivery.