Background: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for pneumococcal vaccinations were updated in 2014. Given the complexity of the guidelines and the fact that hospitals are no longer required to keep records for pneumococcal vaccinations, many hospitals are determining whether to continue this service. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the impact on compliance with the revised pneumococcal vaccination guidelines from the CDC after involving pharmacy in the screening and selection processes. Secondary objectives were to determine the impact of the new process on inappropriate vaccination duplications, the time spent by pharmacy on assessments, and financial outcomes. Methods: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved, retrospective, cohort study examined all patients who received a pneumococcal vaccination from January to February 2016 after implementing a new process whereby pharmacy performed pneumococcal vaccination screening and selection (intervention group). These patients were compared to patients who received a pneumococcal vaccination from January to February 2015 (control group). Results: Of 274 patients who received a pneumococcal vaccine, 273 were included in the study. Compliance to CDC guidelines increased from 42% to 97%. Noncompliant duplications decreased from 16% to 2%. In the intervention group, labor cost for assessments and expenditure for vaccines increased. For Medicare patients, the increased reimbursement balanced the increased expenditure in the intervention group. Conclusions: Involving pharmacy in the pneumococcal vaccine screening and selection process improves compliance to CDC guidelines, but further clinical and financial analysis is needed to determine financial sustainability of the new process.
Background: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for pneumococcal vaccinations were updated in 2014. Given the complexity of the guidelines and the fact that hospitals are no longer required to keep records for pneumococcal vaccinations, many hospitals are determining whether to continue this service. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to determine the impact on compliance with the revised pneumococcal vaccination guidelines from the CDC after involving pharmacy in the screening and selection processes. Secondary objectives were to determine the impact of the new process on inappropriate vaccination duplications, the time spent by pharmacy on assessments, and financial outcomes. Methods: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved, retrospective, cohort study examined all patients who received a pneumococcal vaccination from January to February 2016 after implementing a new process whereby pharmacy performed pneumococcal vaccination screening and selection (intervention group). These patients were compared to patients who received a pneumococcal vaccination from January to February 2015 (control group). Results: Of 274 patients who received a pneumococcal vaccine, 273 were included in the study. Compliance to CDC guidelines increased from 42% to 97%. Noncompliant duplications decreased from 16% to 2%. In the intervention group, labor cost for assessments and expenditure for vaccines increased. For Medicare patients, the increased reimbursement balanced the increased expenditure in the intervention group. Conclusions: Involving pharmacy in the pneumococcal vaccine screening and selection process improves compliance to CDC guidelines, but further clinical and financial analysis is needed to determine financial sustainability of the new process.
Authors: Marc J M Bonten; Susanne M Huijts; Marieke Bolkenbaas; Chris Webber; Scott Patterson; Samantha Gault; Cornelis H van Werkhoven; Anna M M van Deursen; Elisabeth A M Sanders; Theo J M Verheij; Michael Patton; Anne McDonough; Anita Moradoghli-Haftvani; Helen Smith; Tracey Mellelieu; Michael W Pride; Graham Crowther; Beate Schmoele-Thoma; Daniel A Scott; Kathrin U Jansen; Rita Lobatto; Bas Oosterman; Nils Visser; Esther Caspers; Andre Smorenburg; Emilio A Emini; William C Gruber; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245