The pot calling the kettle black: the extent and type of errors in a computerized immunization registry and by parent report.

BACKGROUND: Accurate classification of children's immunization status is essential for clinical care, administration and evaluation of immunization programs, and vaccine program research. Computerized immunization registries have been proposed as a valuable alternative to provider paper records or parent report, but there is a need to better understand the challenges associated with their use. This study assessed the accuracy of immunization status classification in an immunization registry as compared to parent report and determined the number and type of errors occurring in both sources. METHODS: This study was a sub-analysis of a larger study which compared the characteristics of children whose immunizations were up to date (UTD) at two years as compared to those not UTD. Children's immunization status was initially determined from a population-based immunization registry, and then compared to parent report of immunization status, as reported in a postal survey. Discrepancies between the two sources were adjudicated by review of immunization providers' hard-copy clinic records. Descriptive analyses included calculating proportions and confidence intervals for errors in classification and reporting of the type and frequency of errors. RESULTS: Among the 461 survey respondents, there were 60 discrepancies in immunization status. The majority of errors were due to parent report (n = 44), but the registry was not without fault (n = 16). Parents tended to erroneously report their child as UTD, whereas the registry was more likely to wrongly classify children as not UTD. Reasons for registry errors included failure to account for varicella disease history, variable number of doses required due to age at series initiation, and doses administered out of the region. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that parent report is often flawed, but also identify that registries are prone to misclassification of immunization status. Immunization program administrators and researchers need to institute measures to identify and reduce misclassification, in order for registries to play an effective role in the control of vaccine-preventable disease.

Association between continuity and access in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care is a tenet of primary care. Our objective was to explore the relation between a change in access to a primary care physician and continuity of care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among physicians in a primary care network in southwest Alberta who measured access consistently between 2009 and 2016. We used time to the third next available appointment as a measure of access to physicians. We calculated the provider and clinic continuity, discontinuity and emergency department use based on the physicians' own panels. Physicians who improved, worsened or maintained their level of access within a given year were assessed in multilevel models to determine the association with continuity of care at the physician and clinic levels and the emergency department. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 190 primary care physicians. Physicians with improved access increased provider continuity by 6.8% per year, reduced discontinuity by 2.1% per year, and decreased emergency department encounters by 78 visits per 1000 patients per year compared to physicians with stable access. Physicians with worsening access had a 6.2% decrease in provider continuity and an increased number of emergency department encounters (64 visits per 1000 panelled patients per year) compared to physicians with stable access. INTERPRETATION: Changes in access to primary care can affect whether patients seek care from their own physician, from another clinic or at the emergency department. Improving access by reducing the delay in obtaining an appointment with one's primary care physician may be one mechanism to improve continuity of care.

Prevalence and predictors of booster seat use in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of booster seat misuse in a Canadian province and identify determinants of non-use. METHODS: A cross-sectional study using parking lot interviews and in-vehicle restraint inspections by trained staff was conducted at 67 randomly selected childcare centres across Alberta. Only booster-eligible children were included in this analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of children were not in a booster seat, and in 31.8% of cases there was evidence of at least one misuse. Non-use increased significantly by age, from 22.2% for children 2 years of age to 47.8% for children 7 years of age (p = 0.02). Children who were at significantly increased risk of booster seat non-use were those in vehicles with drivers who could not recall the booster seat to seatbelt transition point (OR: 4.54; 95% CI: 2.05-10.06) or drivers who were under the age of 30 (OR: 3.54; 95% CI: 1.45-8.62). A front row seating position was also associated with significantly higher risk of nonuse (OR: 18.00; 95% CI: 2.78-116.56). Children in vehicles with grandparent drivers exhibited significantly decreased risk of booster seat non-use (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05-0.85). CONCLUSION: Messaging should continue to stress that the front seat is not a safe place for any child under the age of 9 as well as remind drivers of the booster seat to seatbelt transition point, with additional emphasis placed on appealing to parents under the age of 30. Future research should focus on the most effective means of communicating booster seat information to this group. Enacting mandatory booster seat legislation would be an important step to increase both awareness and proper use of booster seats in Alberta.