Cited by 23Electronic Health Records SystemsVaccine Coverage and HesitancyMedical Coding and Health Information

FluAlert: A qualitative evaluation of providers' desired characteristics and concerns regarding computerized influenza vaccination alerts

Birmingham, Eileen, Catallozzi, Marina, Findley, Sally E., Vawdrey, David K., Kukafka, Rita, Stockwell, Melissa S.·2011·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Objective To explore pediatric providers' perceived barriers to influenza vaccine delivery, and desired characteristics and potential concerns regarding an influenza vaccine alert integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). Methods Four focus groups with providers (n=21) and five individual interviews with practice leaders in an urban, pediatric primary care network affiliated with an academic medical center in New York City were conducted. Data were collected during the 2009-10 influenza season and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Participants identified several barriers to influenza vaccine delivery, including remembering to vaccinate during sick visits, need to review multiple sources of immunization information, time shortages and inadequate staffing. They felt that an alert could help many of these challenges. They desired the following alert characteristics: 1) alerting providers early in the visit, 2) accurately determining patients' vaccine status by merging multiple sources of immunization information, 3) facilitating vaccine ordering, and 4) generating appropriate documentation in the EHR when vaccines were refused or otherwise not given. Potential concerns regarding the alert included reliability and accuracy of alert, workflow interruptions and forced actions. Conclusions This study highlights providers' interest in a well-integrated, accurate alert that streamlines assessment of vaccination eligibility, ordering and documentation without impeding…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Birmingham, E., Catallozzi, M., Findley, S. E., Vawdrey, D. K., Kukafka, R., & Stockwell, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Stockwell, Melissa S.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
52
Issue
3-4
Pages
274-277
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068334292
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
influenza vaccination, automated alerts, electronic health records, pediatric primary care, provider perceptions, immunization information systems, clinical workflow
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Humans, Influenza Vaccines, Interviews as Topic, Medical Record Linkage, New York City, Pediatrics, Time Factors, Reminder Systems, Focus Groups, Efficiency, Organizational, Qualitative Research, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review