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.

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.

What evidence and support do state-level public health practitioners need to address obesity prevention.

PURPOSE: Obesity has reached epidemic proportions. Public health practitioners are distinctly positioned to promote the environmental changes essential to addressing obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other entities provide evidence and technical assistance to support this work, yet little is known about how practitioners use evidence and support as they intervene to prevent obesity. The study's purpose was to describe how practitioners and CDC project officers characterized the obesity prevention task, where practitioners accessed support and evidence, and what approaches to support and evidence they found most useful. APPROACH OR DESIGN: Mixed-methods, cross-sectional interviews, and survey. SETTING: State-level public health obesity prevention programs. PARTICIPANTS: Public health practitioners and CDC project officers. METHOD: We conducted 10 in-depth interviews with public health practitioners (n = 7) and project officers (n = 3) followed by an online survey completed by 62 practitioners (50% response rate). We applied content analysis to interview data and descriptive statistics to survey data. RESULTS: Practitioners characterized obesity prevention as uncertain and complex, involving interdependence among actors, multiple levels of activity, an excess of information, and a paucity of evidence. Survey findings provide further detail on the types of evidence and support practitioners used and valued. CONCLUSION: We recommend approaches to tailoring evidence and support to the needs of practitioners working on obesity prevention and other complex health problems.