This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0009922807308743v1 47/3/252    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Darden, P. M. Articles by Bocian, A. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Darden, P. M. Articles by Bocian, A. B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How Should Immunization Rates Be Measured in the Office Setting? A Study from PROS and NMA PedsNet

Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, dardenpm{at}musc.edu

James A. Taylor, MD

Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Dennis A. Brooks, MD

Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

J.W. Hendricks, MD

Pediatric and Adolescent Care, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Mehran Massoudi

National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

John M. Stevenson

National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Alison B. Bocian

Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS), Center for Child Health Research (CCHR), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Elk Grove Village, Illinois

The aim of the study was to compare the validity and reliability of 2 sampling methods for measuring immunization rates to a reference standard in a national sample of pediatric office practices. The consecutive method involved patients seen consecutively in the office for any reason; the random record was a random selection of medical records; and the reference standard active method, data of a randomly selected subgroup of children in the random record survey were supplemented with information from a telephone interview. The consecutive method of assessing immunization rates results in rates that are, on average, higher and closer to the reference standard, but also more variable. The random record method rates are lower and further from the study reference standard compared with the consecutive method, but more precise. The consecutive method for measuring practice immunization rates could be a useful quality improvement tool as practices seek to improve immunization delivery and quality of care. It is inexpensive, simple, and easy to implement.

Key Words: vaccination • immunization • measurement • medical record • office visit • health care quality improvement • child • infant

This version was published on April 1, 2008

Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 47, No. 3, 252-260 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0009922807308743


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?