Improving the rates of inpatient pneumococcal vaccination

Impact of standing orders versus computerized reminders to physicians

Christina M. Coyle, Brian P. Currie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interventions using standing orders and computerized reminders to physicians on inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to a control group. DESIGN: Open trial of the following approaches, each on a different ward: (1) standing orders for vaccination of eligible consenting patients, (2) computerized reminders to physicians, and (3) usual practice. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were admitted to three 30-bed inpatient medical wards during a 4-month period in 1999 at one hospital. Unvaccinated patients 65 years or older and competent to give oral consent were included. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist activated a standing orders protocol for vaccination of all eligible consenting patients on one ward and computerized reminders to physicians on a second ward. A third ward served as a control group. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion criteria and accepted vaccination in the standing orders arm versus 35 patients in the computerized reminder arm. Vaccination rates on the standing orders ward included 98% of those eligible and accepting vaccination, 73% of eligible patients, and 28% of all patients admitted. Rates on the computerized reminder ward were 23%, 15%, and 7%, respectively. All of the rates from the standing orders ward were significantly greater than those from the computerized reminder ward (P < .0001). Only 0.6% of all patients on the control arm were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Although both interventions were effective in increasing inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to baseline practice, physician independent initiation of standing orders was clearly more effective.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)904-907
Number of pages4
JournalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Volume25
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2004

Fingerprint

Inpatients
Vaccination
Physicians
Standing Orders
Control Groups
Pharmacists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Immunology

Cite this

@article{ce201cb1ac0a4793a68e9e69dd86154d,
title = "Improving the rates of inpatient pneumococcal vaccination: Impact of standing orders versus computerized reminders to physicians",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interventions using standing orders and computerized reminders to physicians on inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to a control group. DESIGN: Open trial of the following approaches, each on a different ward: (1) standing orders for vaccination of eligible consenting patients, (2) computerized reminders to physicians, and (3) usual practice. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were admitted to three 30-bed inpatient medical wards during a 4-month period in 1999 at one hospital. Unvaccinated patients 65 years or older and competent to give oral consent were included. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist activated a standing orders protocol for vaccination of all eligible consenting patients on one ward and computerized reminders to physicians on a second ward. A third ward served as a control group. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion criteria and accepted vaccination in the standing orders arm versus 35 patients in the computerized reminder arm. Vaccination rates on the standing orders ward included 98{\%} of those eligible and accepting vaccination, 73{\%} of eligible patients, and 28{\%} of all patients admitted. Rates on the computerized reminder ward were 23{\%}, 15{\%}, and 7{\%}, respectively. All of the rates from the standing orders ward were significantly greater than those from the computerized reminder ward (P < .0001). Only 0.6{\%} of all patients on the control arm were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Although both interventions were effective in increasing inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to baseline practice, physician independent initiation of standing orders was clearly more effective.",
author = "Coyle, {Christina M.} and Currie, {Brian P.}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1086/502317",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "904--907",
journal = "Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology",
issn = "0899-823X",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the rates of inpatient pneumococcal vaccination

T2 - Impact of standing orders versus computerized reminders to physicians

AU - Coyle, Christina M.

AU - Currie, Brian P.

PY - 2004/11

Y1 - 2004/11

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interventions using standing orders and computerized reminders to physicians on inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to a control group. DESIGN: Open trial of the following approaches, each on a different ward: (1) standing orders for vaccination of eligible consenting patients, (2) computerized reminders to physicians, and (3) usual practice. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were admitted to three 30-bed inpatient medical wards during a 4-month period in 1999 at one hospital. Unvaccinated patients 65 years or older and competent to give oral consent were included. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist activated a standing orders protocol for vaccination of all eligible consenting patients on one ward and computerized reminders to physicians on a second ward. A third ward served as a control group. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion criteria and accepted vaccination in the standing orders arm versus 35 patients in the computerized reminder arm. Vaccination rates on the standing orders ward included 98% of those eligible and accepting vaccination, 73% of eligible patients, and 28% of all patients admitted. Rates on the computerized reminder ward were 23%, 15%, and 7%, respectively. All of the rates from the standing orders ward were significantly greater than those from the computerized reminder ward (P < .0001). Only 0.6% of all patients on the control arm were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Although both interventions were effective in increasing inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to baseline practice, physician independent initiation of standing orders was clearly more effective.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interventions using standing orders and computerized reminders to physicians on inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to a control group. DESIGN: Open trial of the following approaches, each on a different ward: (1) standing orders for vaccination of eligible consenting patients, (2) computerized reminders to physicians, and (3) usual practice. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were admitted to three 30-bed inpatient medical wards during a 4-month period in 1999 at one hospital. Unvaccinated patients 65 years or older and competent to give oral consent were included. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist activated a standing orders protocol for vaccination of all eligible consenting patients on one ward and computerized reminders to physicians on a second ward. A third ward served as a control group. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion criteria and accepted vaccination in the standing orders arm versus 35 patients in the computerized reminder arm. Vaccination rates on the standing orders ward included 98% of those eligible and accepting vaccination, 73% of eligible patients, and 28% of all patients admitted. Rates on the computerized reminder ward were 23%, 15%, and 7%, respectively. All of the rates from the standing orders ward were significantly greater than those from the computerized reminder ward (P < .0001). Only 0.6% of all patients on the control arm were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Although both interventions were effective in increasing inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to baseline practice, physician independent initiation of standing orders was clearly more effective.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=9244225111&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=9244225111&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/502317

DO - 10.1086/502317

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 904

EP - 907

JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

SN - 0899-823X

IS - 11

ER -