Improving Staff Experience With Vaccine Data Entry With 2D Barcode Scanning.

BACKGROUND: Small fonts on vaccine labels make manually recording vaccine data in patient records time-consuming and challenging. Vaccine 2-dimensional (2D) barcode scanning is a promising alternative to manually recording these data. PROBLEM: While vaccine 2D barcode scanning assists in data entry, adoption of scanning technology is still low. APPROACH: Pilot sites (n = 27) within a health system scanned 2D barcodes to record vaccine data for 6 months. The time to record through scanning and nonscanning methods was measured for 13 vaccinators at 9 sites. A survey was administered to participants across all sites about their experience. OUTCOMES: On average, 22 seconds were saved per vaccine scanned versus entered manually (7 vs 29 seconds, respectively). Participants reported preference for scanning over other vaccine entry options and identified benefits of scanning. CONCLUSION: Expanded use of 2D barcode scanning can meaningfully improve clinical practices by improving efficiency and staff satisfaction during vaccine data entry.

Improving Utilization of Vaccine Two-Dimensional (2D) Barcode Scanning Technology Maximizes Accuracy Benefits.

BACKGROUND: Recording vaccine data accurately can be problematic in medical documentation, including blank and inaccurate records. Vaccine two-dimensional (2D) barcode scanning has shown promise, yet scanner use to record vaccine data is limited. We sought to identify strategies to improve scanning rates and assess changes in accuracy. METHODS: Between January and June 2017, 27 pilot sites within a large health system were assigned to one of four groups to test strategies to maximize scanner use: training only, commitment card, scanning report, or combination. Seventy-two thousand vaccine records were assessed for completeness, accuracy, and scanning. RESULTS: Significant increases in vaccinator scanning rates found with commitment card and scanning report inclusion (alone and paired) compared with the training-only group. Record completeness and accuracy significantly improved with use of scanning. When manually entered, about 1 in 9 records had a missing or inaccurate expiration date; when scanned, this dropped to 1 in 5,000. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot findings indicate 2D scanning has the potential to eliminate most omissions and inaccuracies in vaccine records. Such data are critical during a recall or need to trace specific vaccines or patients. IMPLICATIONS: Consistent use and expanded adoption of 2D scanning can meaningfully improve the quality of vaccine records and clinical practices.

Evaluation of scanning 2D barcoded vaccines to improve data accuracy of vaccines administered.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Accurately recording vaccine lot number, expiration date, and product identifiers, in patient records is an important step in improving supply chain management and patient safety in the event of a recall. These data are being encoded on two-dimensional (2D) barcodes on most vaccine vials and syringes. Using electronic vaccine administration records, we evaluated the accuracy of lot number and expiration date entered using 2D barcode scanning compared to traditional manual or drop-down list entry methods. METHODS: We analyzed 128,573 electronic records of vaccines administered at 32 facilities. We compared the accuracy of records entered using 2D barcode scanning with those entered using traditional methods using chi-square tests and multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: When 2D barcodes were scanned, lot number data accuracy was 1.8 percentage points higher (94.3-96.1%, P<0.001) and expiration date data accuracy was 11 percentage points higher (84.8-95.8%, P<0.001) compared with traditional methods. In multivariate analysis, lot number was more likely to be accurate (aOR=1.75; 99% CI, 1.57-1.96) as was expiration date (aOR=2.39; 99% CI, 2.12-2.68). When controlling for scanning and other factors, manufacturer, month vaccine was administered, and vaccine type were associated with variation in accuracy for both lot number and expiration date. CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional barcode scanning shows promise for improving data accuracy of vaccine lot number and expiration date records. Adapting systems to further integrate with 2D barcoding could help increase adoption of 2D barcode scanning technology.

Evaluation of primary/preferred language data collection.

A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles related to primary/preferred language and interpreter-use data collection practices in hospitals, clinics, and outpatient settings to assess its completeness and quality. In January 2011, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies. Primary and secondary inclusion criteria were applied to selected eligible articles. This extensive literature search yielded 768 articles after duplicates were removed. After primary and secondary inclusion criteria were applied, 28 eligible articles remained for data abstraction. All 28 articles in this review reported collecting primary/preferred language data, but only 18% (5/28) collected information on interpreter use. This review revealed that there remains variability in the way that primary/preferred language and interpreter use data are collected; all studies used various methodologies for evaluating and abstracting these data. Likewise, the sources from which the data were abstracted differed.

Electronic capture and communication of synoptic cancer data elements from pathology reports: results of the Reporting Pathology Protocols 2 (RPP2) project.

Pathology reports represent a rich data source for cancer registries. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cancer Checklists present pathology reports in synoptic form and allow registries to be updated electronically. To assess the challenge of employing the CAP Cancer Checklists in pathology laboratories and transmitting that information to cancer registries, we conducted a pilot project: the Reporting Pathology Protocols project (RPP2). The RPP2 project was a multi-year, "proof of concept" demonstration that assessed pathology report-generated data for 3 CAP Cancer Checklists (breast, prostate, and melanoma) in several different cancer registry-pathology laboratory combinations in 3 states. Collaborating pathology laboratories and state cancer registries in California, Maine, and Pennsylvania identified key questions (queries) to address in the course of the project, developed and tested standardized HL7 messaging specifications to link senders and recipients, and then assessed the actual process results using either parallel reporting or retrospective-prospective cases for each tumor type. Successful electronic transfer and capture of pertinent data elements for numerous examples of each tumor type was accomplished in each participating cancer registry/reporting laboratory/information system combination. We noted shortcomings in the electronically encoded CAP Checklists as opposed to text-based reports, particularly for breast cancers. We uncovered opportunities to improve Checklists and the information systems that incorporate them. Workflow, productivity, and timeliness of reporting are areas where electronically encoded reports may enhance cancer registry processes. The accuracy and completeness of electronically encoded data appears largely comparable to text-based data, but subject to the degree of synchrony between the formats of text-based and electronic reports.