Advertisement

The Impact of Inactive Infants on Clinic-Based Immunization Rates

      Objective

      Clinic-based immunization rates are used to evaluate clinic performance and immunization interventions, but they typically exclude so-called inactive patients (ie, those who no longer receive care at the clinic). We assessed the effect of enhanced ascertainment of inactive patients on clinic-based immunization rates and on the conclusions of a randomized controlled trial.

      Methods

      The study was a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Infant randomization to the immunization intervention (4 clinics) or control group (4 clinics) was based on the site of their 2-week well-child care visit. The study was conducted at an integrated inner-city health care system serving a low-income population. A total of 2190 infants born between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999, who attended at least 1 postnatal visit, participated. In control sites, clinic staff documented inactive infants in the immunization registry and medical charts. The research staff undertook additional patient tracking efforts in the intervention clinics.

      Results

      Control clinics identified 155 (13.4%) of 1160 children as inactive within 1 year of birth, whereas 284 (27.6%) of 1030 intervention infants were documented as inactive (P < .001). In bivariate analyses from the randomized trial, immunization rates differed between intervention and control branches. In multivariate models, immunization rates were significantly higher in the intervention branch when inactive infants were removed (adjusted relative risk 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–1.89), but not when they were included (adjusted relative risk 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97–1.21).

      Conclusions

      Additional patient tracking efforts can dramatically influence inactive patient documentation and clinic-based immunization rates used for various purposes.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Pediatrics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        National, state, and urban area vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months—United States, 2004.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005; 54: 717-721
        • US Department of Health and Human Services
        Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC2000 (Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/tableofcontents.htm. Accessed February 11, 2006)
        • Santoli J.M.
        • Setia S.
        • Rodewald L.E.
        • et al.
        Immunization pockets of need science and practice.
        Am J Prev Med. 2000; 19: 89-98
        • Rosenthal J.
        • Rodewald L.
        • McCauley M.
        • et al.
        Immunization coverage levels among 19- to 35-month-old children in 4 diverse, medically underserved areas of the United States.
        Pediatrics. 2004; 113: 296-302
        • Rosenthal J.
        • Raymond D.
        • Morita J.
        • et al.
        African-American children are at risk of a measles outbreak in an inner-city community of Chicago, 2000.
        Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23: 195-199
        • Fairbrother G.
        • Siegel M.J.
        • Friedman S.
        • et al.
        Impact of financial incentives on documented immunization rates in the inner city.
        Ambul Pediatr. 2001; 1: 206-212
        • Minkovitz C.
        • Holt E.
        • Hughart N.
        • et al.
        The effect of parental monetary sanctions on the vaccination status of young children.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999; 153: 1242-1247
        • Daley M.F.
        • Steiner J.F.
        • Brayden R.M.
        • et al.
        Immunization registry-based recall for a new vaccine.
        Ambul Pediatr. 2002; 2: 438-443
        • Udovic S.L.
        • Lieu T.A.
        Evidence on office-based interventions to improve childhood immunization delivery.
        Pediatr Ann. 1998; 27: 355-361
        • Lieu T.A.
        • Black S.B.
        • Ray P.
        • et al.
        Computer-generated recall letters for underimmunized children.
        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1997; 16: 28-33
        • Irigoyen M.M.
        • Findley S.
        • Earle B.
        • et al.
        Impact of appointment reminders on vaccination coverage at an urban clinic.
        Pediatrics (Journal of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association). 2000; 106: 919-923
        • Dini E.F.
        • Linkins R.W.
        • Sigafoos J.
        The impact of computer-generated messages on childhood immunization coverage.
        Am J Prev Med. 2000; 19: 68-70
        • Dini E.F.
        • Chaney M.
        • Moolenaar R.L.
        • LeBaron C.W.
        Information as intervention.
        J Public Health Manage Pract. 1996; 2: 45-49
        • LeBaron C.W.
        • Chaney M.
        • Baughman A.L.
        • et al.
        Impact of measurement and feedback on vaccination coverage in public clinics, 1988–1994.
        JAMA. 1997; 277: 631-635
        • LeBaron C.W.
        • Mercer J.T.
        • Massoudi M.S.
        • et al.
        Changes in clinic vaccination coverage after institution of measurement and feedback in 4 states and 2 cities.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999; 153: 879-886
        • Hambidge S.J.
        • Davidson A.J.
        • Phibbs S.L.
        • et al.
        Strategies to improve immunization rates and well-child care in a disadvantaged population.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004; 158: 162-169
        • Wood D.
        • Halfon N.
        • Donald-Sherbourne C.
        • et al.
        Increasing immunization rates among inner-city, African-American children.
        JAMA. 1998; 279: 29-34
        • Ad Hoc Working Group for the Development of Standards for Pediatric Immunization Practices
        Standards for pediatric immunization practices.
        JAMA. 1993; 269: 1817-1822
        • Fairbrother G.
        • Freed G.L.
        • Thompson J.W.
        Measuring immunization coverage.
        Am J Prev Med. 2000; 19: 78-88
        • US General Accounting Office
        CDC’s National Immunization Program. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC1997 (Report GAO/HEHS-97-136R)
        • Morrow A.L.
        • Crews R.C.
        • Carretta H.J.
        • et al.
        Effect of method of defining the active patient population on measured immunization rates in predominantly Medicaid and non-Medicaid practices.
        Pediatrics (Journal of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association). 2000; 106: 171-176
        • Darden P.M.
        • Taylor J.A.
        Assessing immunization rates in office practice.
        Pediatr Ann. 1998; 27: 411-416
        • O’Connor M.E.
        • Maddocks B.
        • Modie C.
        • Pierce H.
        The effect of different definitions of a patient on immunization assessment.
        AJPH. 2001; 91: 1273-1275
        • Darden P.M.
        Assessing immunization rates.
        Pediatrics (Journal of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association). 2000; 106: 169-170
        • Darden P.M.
        • Taylor J.A.
        • Slora E.J.
        • et al.
        Methodological issues in determining rates of childhood immunization in office practice.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996; 150: 1027-1031
        • Gabow P.
        • Eisert S.
        • Wright R.
        Denver Health.
        Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 143-149
        • Davidson A.J.
        • Melinkovich P.
        • Beaty B.L.
        • et al.
        Immunization registry accuracy.
        Am J Prev Med. 2003; 24: 276-280
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. User’s Guide for the Windows Version of the Clinic Assessment Software Application. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http//www.cdc.gov/nip/casa/c_userguide.htm.

        • Rodewald L.E.
        • Szilagyi P.G.
        • Humiston S.G.
        • et al.
        A randomized study of tracking with outreach and provider prompting to improve immunization coverage and primary care.
        Pediatrics. 1999; 103: 31-38