Exploring perspectives on vaccinations delivered in complementary non-clinical settings and by non-physician healthcare professionals: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand perspectives on vaccine administration at complementary sites (such as pharmacies, mobile clinics, and pop-up clinics) by non-physician healthcare providers (NPHPs), and the policies/barriers surrounding administration. METHODS: We performed interviews with healthcare providers (HCPs) and vaccination policy experts to elicit perspectives on including vaccination program scope, facilitators and barriers to NPHPs administering vaccines, and recommendations for improvement of vaccine administration. Eligible participants were required to either work directly in vaccination administration or work in vaccination policy. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants completed interviews. Participants reported that US individuals have a positive view of vaccination at complementary sites and by NPHPs, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, where vaccination was often performed by NPHPs at complementary sites. Concerns expressed by participants included language barriers, out-of-pocket costs, and mistrust among marginalized communities. Participants described the complexity of state and local regulations, particularly scope of practice laws, as a barrier to implementation of NPHP vaccination programs at complementary sites. CONCLUSIONS: NPHPs and vaccination advocates report that complementary sites represent a potentially important step to ensuring broader, more equitable vaccination service in the US.

Understanding Diversity of Policies, Functionalities, and Operationalization of Immunization Information Systems and Their Impact: A Targeted Review of the Literature.

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused attention on the use of immunization information systems (IIS) to record and consolidate immunization records from a variety of sources to generate comprehensive patient immunization histories. Operationalization of IIS in the United States is decentralized, and as such, there are over 60 different IIS with wide variations in enabling policies and functionalities. As such, the policies that inform the development and operation of those sub-national IIS exist at the state and sometimes city levels. A targeted literature review was conducted to identify IIS policies and functionalities and assess their impact. The authors identified articles published from 2012 to 2022 that discussed or evaluated IIS policies and functionalities and screened titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. When selected for inclusion, authors extracted IIS policy/functionality characteristics and qualitative or quantitative outcomes of their implementation, where applicable. The search terms yielded 86 articles, of which 39 were included in the analysis. The articles were heterogeneous with respect to study design, interventions, outcomes, and effect measures. Out of the 17 IIS policies and functional components identified in the targeted literature review, the most commonly evaluated were provider-based patient reminder/recall, IIS-based centralized reminder/recall, and clinical decision support. Patient reminder/recall had the most published research and was associated with increased vaccination rates and vaccine knowledge. Despite the lack of quantitative evidence, there is a consensus that immunization data interoperability is critical to supporting IIS data quality, access, and exchange. Significant evidence gaps remain about the effectiveness of IIS functionalities and policies. Future research should evaluate the impact of policies and functionalities to guide improved utilization of IIS, increase national interoperability and standardization, and ultimately improve vaccination coverage and population health.

Using Quality Measures to Drive Improvements in Immunization Rates: Findings from a Real-World Evaluation from 3 US Health Care Organizations.

Adult immunization rates are low and continue to fail to meet national targets. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic halted routine health care services for many, including vaccinations. This study explored whether the National Committee for Quality Assurance's Adult Immunization Status (AIS) measure, which had previously only been evaluated for reporting by health plans, could be leveraged by health care organizations (HCOs) as a tactic to improve immunization rates. Methods included a quantitative analysis of deidentified patient electronic health record data from 3 HCOs, supplemented by qualitative interviews to further understand opportunities and barriers. The analysis indicated that the data necessary for calculation of the AIS measure are available within HCOs and that measure performance could be enhanced with supplemental data from external sources, such as state immunization registries. Although HCOs rates were consistent with national estimates, this research further validated that adult immunization rates in the United States are low and highlighted the profound disparities that exist. For instance, the likelihood of completing all age-appropriate vaccinations was lower if patients were Black or African American, enrolled in Medicaid, or without health insurance. As a result of this study, the authors concluded that the AIS measure is feasible for use in medical groups and could potentially help drive quality improvements in immunization rates; however, there are considerations for implementation particularly if providers are being held accountable for measure performance.