Immunization Information Systems

An evaluation of a project to establish automated bidirectional exchange of immunization data between New York City’s immunization information system and five community-based electronic health record systems. Using standard definition of “up to date” for defined age groups, this project demonstrated significant increased int he rate of being up to date (overall 75% to 82%, with varying rates in different age groups).

[su_cite_pediatrics url_fragment = ‘137/6/e20154335’ author = ‘Stockwell’ year = ‘2016’] | PubMed 27244856 | Author Search

Made up largely of information-systems professionals working in the public-health sector. AIRA, which describes itself as the “centralized core of activity for IIS development, standardization, and best practices” is a major driver in the creation of the HL7 Implementation Guides for Immunization Messaging, which can be downloaded from this web site.

A logic specification for immunization decision support based on current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations from the CDC. Attempts to remove the linguistic ambiguity from the human-readbale version of the guidelines.

Gowda C, Dong S, Potter RC, Dombkowski KJ, Stokley S, Dempsey AF

Public Health Rep 2013 Nov-Dec;128(6):489-97

PMID: 24179260

OBJECTIVE: Immunization information systems (IISs) are valuable surveillance tools; however, population relocation may introduce bias when determining immunization coverage. We explored alternative methods for estimating the vaccine-eligible population when calculating adolescent immunization levels using a statewide IIS.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Michigan State Care Improvement Registry (MCIR) for all adolescents aged 11-18 years registered in the MCIR as of October 2010. We explored four methods for determining denominators: (1) including all adolescents with MCIR records, (2) excluding adolescents with out-of-state residence, (3) further excluding those without MCIR activity ≥ 10 years prior to the evaluation date, and (4) using a denominator based on U.S. Census data. We estimated state- and county-specific coverage levels for four adolescent vaccines.

RESULTS: We found a 20% difference in estimated vaccination coverage between the most inclusive and restrictive denominator populations. Although there was some variability among the four methods in vaccination at the state level (2%-11%), greater variation occurred at the county level (up to 21%). This variation was substantial enough to potentially impact public health assessments of immunization programs. Generally, vaccines with higher coverage levels had greater absolute variation, as did counties with smaller populations.

CONCLUSION: At the county level, using the four denominator calculation methods resulted in substantial differences in estimated adolescent immunization rates that were less apparent when aggregated at the state level. Further research is needed to ascertain the most appropriate method for estimating vaccine coverage levels using IIS data.

Jackson ML, Henrikson NB, Grossman DC

Acad Pediatr 2014 Jan-Feb;14(1):71-6

PMID: 24369871

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Immunization information systems (IISs) are powerful public health tools for vaccination activities. To date, however, their use for public health research has been limited, in part as a result of insufficient understanding on accuracy and quality of IIS data. We evaluated the completeness and accuracy of Washington State IIS (WAIIS) data, with particular attention to data elements of research interest.

METHODS: We analyzed all WAIIS records on all children born between 2006 and 2010 with at least 1 vaccination recorded in WAIIS between 2006 and 2010. We assessed all variables for completeness and tested selected variables for internal validity. To assess external validity, we matched WAIIS data to records from Group Health, a large integrated health care organization in Washington State. On these children, we compared vaccination data in WAIIS with vaccination data from Group Health’s immunization registry.

RESULTS: The WAIIS data included 486,265 children and 8,670,234 unique vaccinations. Variables required by WAIIS (such as date of vaccination) were highly complete, but optional variables were often missing. For example, most records were missing data on route (80.7%) and anatomic site (81.7%) of vaccination. WAIIS data, when complete, were highly accurate relative to the Group Health immunization registry, with 96% to 99% agreement between fields such as vaccination code and anatomic site.

CONCLUSIONS: Required data elements in WAIIS are highly complete and have both internal and external validity, suggesting that these variables are useful for research. Research requiring nonrequired variables should use additional validity checks before proceeding.

Hendrickson BK, Panchanathan SS, Petitti D

J Public Health Manag Pract 2013 Dec;

PMID: 24378608

Abstract

CONTEXT:: Information systems are used by most states to maintain registries of immunization data both for monitoring population-level adherence and for use in clinical practice and research. Direct data exchange between such systems and electronic health record systems presents an opportunity to improve the completeness and quality of information available.

OBJECTIVE:: Our goals were to describe and compare the completeness of the Arizona State Immunization System, the electronic health record at a large community health provider in Arizona exchanging electronic data with the Arizona system, and personal immunization records in an effort to contribute to the discussion on the completeness of state-run immunization registries and data exchange with these registries.

DESIGN:: Immunization histories from these sources were collected and reviewed sequentially. Unique dates of vaccination administrations were counted for each patient and tagged on the basis of comparisons across sources.

RESULTS:: We quantified completeness by combining information from all 3 sources and comparing each source with the complete set. We determined that the state registry was 71.8% complete, the hospital electronic health record was 81.9% complete, and personal records were 87.8% complete. Of the 2017 unique vaccination administrations, 65% were present in all 3 sources, 24.6% in 2 of the 3 sources, and 10.4% in only 1 source. Only 11% of patients had records in complete agreement across the 3 sources.

CONCLUSION:: This study highlights issues related to data completeness, exchange, and reporting of immunization information to state registries and suggests that there is some degree of deficiency in completeness of immunization registries and other sources. This study indicates that there is a need to strengthen links between electronic data sources with immunization information and describes potential improvements in completeness that such efforts could provide, enabling providers to better rely on state immunization registries and to improve research utilization of immunization information systems.

Curran EA, Seib KG, Wells K, Hannan C, Bednarczyk RA, Hinman AR, Omer SB

J Public Health Manag Pract 2013 Dec;

PMID: 24378609

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:: To determine and characterize practices regarding data sharing and usage (particularly for research) in immunization information systems (IISs), as well as barriers to using such data for research.

DESIGN:: We surveyed immunization program managers (IPMs) associated with all 64 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grantee immunization programs (IPs) between July and September 2012.

RESULTS:: More than 95% of IPMs (61/64) responded. The top 2 barriers reported by IPMs to using IIS data for research were insufficient time and too few employees, irrespective of whether or not the jurisdiction reported using data for research purposes. Those IPMs who agreed with the statement “Research is part of the mission of an immunization program” were more likely to report using data for research (P = .045). Among those who responded, the most common kind of IIS research conducted involved determinants of vaccination coverage (n = 24/26; 92%). A greater percentage of IPMs in jurisdictions that reported using IIS data for research reported having data-sharing agreements in place. Those IPs that have used IIS data for research were more likely to report online IIS provider enrollment, integration with insurance company records, and integration with hospital records. Alternatively, IPs that did not report using IIS data for research were more likely to have IISs with modules addressing topics such as adverse event reporting, smallpox, and first-responder vaccination.

CONCLUSION:: Staff size and time were the 2 most cited barriers to conducting research with IIS data. Therefore, focus should also be placed on providing IPs with the resources needed to conduct such research.

Heidebrecht CL, Kwong JC, Finkelstein M, Quan SD, Pereira JA, Quach S, Deeks SL

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2014;14:5

PMID: 24423014

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the features and performance of health information systems can serve to strengthen the systems themselves as well as to guide other organizations in the process of designing and implementing surveillance tools. We adapted an evaluation framework in order to assess electronic immunization data collection systems, and applied it in two Ontario public health units.

METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems are broad in nature and serve as an organizational tool to guide the development of comprehensive evaluation materials. Based on these Guidelines, and informed by other evaluation resources and input from stakeholders in the public health community, we applied an evaluation framework to two examples of immunization data collection and examined several system attributes: simplicity, flexibility, data quality, timeliness, and acceptability. Data collection approaches included key informant interviews, logic and completeness assessments, client surveys, and on-site observations.

RESULTS: Both evaluated systems allow high-quality immunization data to be collected, analyzed, and applied in a rapid fashion. However, neither system is currently able to link to other providers’ immunization data or provincial data sources, limiting the comprehensiveness of coverage assessments. We recommended that both organizations explore possibilities for external data linkage and collaborate with other jurisdictions to promote a provincial immunization repository or data sharing platform.

CONCLUSIONS: Electronic systems such as the ones described in this paper allow immunization data to be collected, analyzed, and applied in a rapid fashion, and represent the infostructure required to establish a population-based immunization registry, critical for comprehensively assessing vaccine coverage.