Immunization Registries Update, 2003

1
Immunization Registries Update, 2003
Gail Williams, MPH, CHES National Immunization
Program Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2
Healthy People 2010 Objective

• Increase to 95 the proportion of children (0lt6
  years of age) in a fully operational
  population-based immunization registry
• (Healthy People 2010, objective 14.26)

3
Progress towards HP goal, 2001
Overall 31
Note States in white have only
non-population-based registries Source
Immunization Registries Annual Report, 2002
4
(No Transcript)
5
Strengthening Our Standards

• 12 Functional Standards
• Reinforced in the upcoming guidance document
• Supported in the Certification Process
• PROW Standards of Excellence
• NVAC endorsement
• Design of demonstration sites
• Notice to Readers MMWR

6
Strengthening Our Partnerships

• American Immunization Registry Association
• Association of Immunization Managers
• Committee on Immunization Registry Standards and
  Electronic Transactions
• Connections
• Every Child by Two
• Health care professional organizations
• Public health organizations
• Government public health and financing
  organizations

7
Strengthening Providers Participation

• Health Care Professional Participation Work
  Group (HCPWG)
• Members AAFP, AAHP, AAP, AIRA, ANA, APA, ECBT,
  Kaiser, NACHC, NMA, CDC
• Registry Value
• Provider Marketing
• Marketing/Education
• Integration/Research

8
Strengthening Our Data Quality

• Certification
• De-duplication test cases
• National Immunization Survey

9
Certification Helping registries become
certification-ready

• Technical Work Group
• Pilot tested voluntary certification criteria in
• Michigan
• New Jersey
• Utah
• Where are we now?

10
De-duplication Test Caseshttp//www.cdc.gov/nip/r
egistry/dedup/dedup.htm
11
National Immunization Survey

• Pilot tested
• Arizona Michigan
• Oklahoma Washington, DC
• Provides Coverage Estimates
• Provider Verified Patient Histories
• Assess completeness
• Compare NIS to Registry data

12
Registry Sentinel Sites
New York City
Oregon Cities of Salem and
Portland
Michigan Jackson, Kent,
Muskegon Co.
Utah Salt Lake County
Arizona Coconino County
San Antonio
Oklahoma
Washington, D.C
13
Sentinel Sites Profiles
Source Sentinel Site Reports, May 2003
14
Sentinel Sites Data

• Describe vaccination coverage by age group and
  antigen
• Compare vaccination series data with data from
  past quarters and the lower confidence interval
  of the 2001 National Immunization Survey (NIS)
  estimate
• Describe immunization coverage by age group and
  antigen
• Provide data on ad hoc requests
• NOTE NIS 2001 data are not directly comparable
  to 2003 sentinel site quarterly reports.

15
SampleTimeliness of Registry Data
16
Registry Consent and Participation,
Preliminary Findings, May 2003
17
Challenges for Immunization Registries

• Ensuring the participation of all or almost all
  immunization providers and parents,
• Ensuring appropriate technical functioning of
  registries to enable high quality data
  collection, use, and exchange,
• Ensuring the confidentiality of registry
  information and the privacy of registry
  participants, and
• Ensuring a sustainable funding stream for
  continued immunization registry support.

18
Recommendations to Improve Immunization
Registries..

• Ensure Provider demand for registries
• Complete and accurate history
• Reminders and recalls
• Ensure registries support immunization program
  objectives
• 12 Functional Standards
• PROW Standards of Excellence
• Ensure Privacy and Confidentiality
• Monitor state and federal legislation
• Research impact of state legislation on IR.
• Clear legal authority

19
http//www.cdc.gov/nip/