1. 37th National Immunization Conference March 18, 2003 Chicago, Illinois
Quality Improvement in Immunization Registries from a Satisfaction Survey
37th National Immunization Conference
March 18, 2003
Chicago, Illinois

2. Authors Partners in Health Systems Maureen K. Murphy MPA
Katie Reed MPA
Susan Maute BA
Sheila A. Allard BS
Amanda Wilson BA
Laurie Kenyon MS

3. Partners In Health Systems
Company contracted to manage, maintain and support regional registries across much of Upstate New York since 1995.
Registry Application, “HealthyShot”
Currently installed in 36+ counties.
Now working as a statewide registry.

4. Where Healthy Shot is Used
NIAGARA
MONROE
SUFFOLK
NASSAU
ROCKLAND
NEW YORK CITY
CHAUTAUQUA
CATTARAUGUS
ALLEGANY
WYOMING
GENESEE
ORLEANS
LIVINGSTON
WAYNE
ONTARIO
YATES
SCHUYLER
STEUBEN
CHEMUNG
SENECA
TOMPKINS
BROOME
CORTLAND
CAYUGA
ONONDAGA
OSWEGO
LEWIS
MADISON
CHENANGO
OTSEGO
DELAWARE
HERKIMER
FULTON
MONTGOMERY
SCHOHARIE
GREENE
COLUMBIA
ALBANY
RENSSELAER
SARATOGA
WASHINGTON
WARREN
HAMILTON
SULLIVAN
ULSTER
DUTCHESS
JEFFERSON
STLAWRENCE
FRANKLIN
CLINTON
ESSEX
ORANGE
PUTNAM
ONEIDA
ERIE
TIOGA
WESTCHESTER
SCHENECTADY
Original CNYIR region
Statewide Deployment using
CNYIR model
Potential HealthyShot counties

5. HealthyShot Non-Mandated, written consent driven registry
Model started with the CNY region in 1995.
Year 2000, HealthyShot started in FLAIR.
Year 2002, HealthyShot deployed throughout Western NY.
Year 2002, HealthyShot began deployment Downstate.
Currently deployed in nearly 75% of the counties across NYS.

6. It all began with….
NIC Conference in Denver, the altitude had a strange effect on my better judgement…..
It brought to my attention the need to have measurable rates of satisfaction.
With that, develop mechanisms to monitor satisfaction, thus providing opportunities to identify needs and applaud successes.

7. The Survey
Was designed as a collaborative effort between PHS, CNY and FLAIR with significant contribution from colleagues at the University of Rochester
The sample of 140 consisted of all registry participants
The survey was administered by mail, June 2002
Return rate was 69, or 45%

8. What We Were Assessing
We recognized that the greatest value would be an evaluation from soup to nuts of the entire project . This means...
Recruitment
Software
Support
And everything else in-between!

9. Routinely used? “Regular” was defined by user
Vast majority using on a regular basis
The rate of sending data may speak to maturity of site
The rate of sending data may indicate technical issues
Use is also linked to staffing

10. Who enters data?
This speaks directly to involving the entire staff in the recruitment and implementation process
“Other” was not defined. This will be crucial to define in future endeavors.

11. With these Results… New Questions
What is the definition of “routinely used”?
In the recruitment process, are we meeting with all the right personnel?
In the training process are we training all those who should be?

12. Gaining consents?
There is some question as to the truth of the responses
Our consent and saturation rates should be nearing 95% if this is accurate

13. Who gains consent?
The theme of involving the receptionist and other office staff continues to be illustrated

14. ...And More Questions...

15. …Hmmmmmmmm
If consent is being gained nearly ALWAYS shouldn’t the number of children be growing more significantly ?
Hey wait, is the right person answering the survey?
What age is being targeted for consent?
Have we targeted the proper staff to train in gaining consent?

16. Overall satisfaction with support
The results speak for themselves

17. Satisfaction with recruitment
Encouraging response
Should explore how to move from “Good” to “Great”

18. ...And Even More Questions...

19. ….I wonder………. The rates are great but, how can we improve?
Where poor or very poor were answered, get to the root. (It was discovered that the survey had landed in the wrong hands).

20. The Big Discovery
It became clear that an unintentional finding was going to have significant bearing….
By making participants comfortable with the process and involving them from the beginning, will give them Ownership.

21. What Good are Findings Unless You’re Going to do Something With Them?!
….And Then
What Good are Findings Unless You’re Going to do Something With Them?!

22. Tools Created to Enhance Process
Implementation Workbook
Highlights
Registry Champion
Who, What Where, When and How
Concise description of what to expect from recruitment up to and beyond installation
Drawbacks
Agreement to participate doesn’t always occur at meeting
Workbook is best utilized when an introduction is provided

23. More Tools Leave Behind Piece In Process: Post installation evaluation
One bulleted page to provide staff with an introduction to the Registry.
In Process:
Post installation evaluation
Designed to capture needs and strengths at the earliest time. Thus enabling us to get the participants on track and ensuring they stay there!
Consent FAQ’s Sheet
A bulleted list of FAQ’s to provide everyone in the office the means for capturing consents .

24. What do we do now?
Use the survey periodically to re-assess the satisfaction of user community.
Take our cues from the results.
Evaluate the newer tools to be sure they are meeting their intended need.
Recognize this is an on-going process.
Recognize this is a Quality Assurance measure.
Recognize we have a commitment to the User Community to be the best we can be!!

25. Contact Information
Maureen K. Murphy
Project Coordinator, FLAIR
Partners in Health Systems
5703 Enterprise Parkway
Dewitt, NY 13214