http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/1/e39

Full Text of this Article Reprint (PDF) Version of this Article Email this article to a friend P3Rs: Submit a response to this article Similar articles found in: Pediatrics Online PubMed PubMed Citation Search PubMed for articles by: Glauber, J. H. Alert me when: new articles cite this article   Download to Citation Manager

Collections under which this article appears: Infectious Disease & Immunity

Related AAP Red Book topics:     Hepatitis B     Haemophilus influenzae Infections     Poliovirus Infections

PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 1 July 2003, pp. e39-e45

 

The Immunization Delivery Effectiveness Assessment Score: A Better Immunization Measure?

James H. Glauber, MD, MPH

From the Neighborhood Health Plan, Boston, Massachusetts

Background. Childhood immunization measures, such as the Health Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) or the National Immunization Survey, assess the percentage of children up-to-date for a specified series of vaccinations. In particular, the HEDIS assesses immunization delivery to children enrolled in managed care organizations (MCO). Such measures do not assess the timeliness of immunization delivery with reference to recommended age standards. To achieve maximal protection against vaccine-preventable diseases, children should receive all immunizations within recommended age intervals—fully "on-time."

Objective. The Immunization Delivery Effectiveness Assessment (IDEA) is a novel immunization measure that assesses, on a continuous scale, the timeliness of administration of each vaccination with reference to recommended age intervals. Specifically we ask: 1) Do absolute immunization rates differ between HEDIS and IDEA? 2) Does relative MCO performance differ when assessed by the 2 performance measures? 3) How well do MCOs perform relative to the standard of fully on-time immunization? The health services implications of using the timeliness standard to assess childhood immunization delivery is discussed.

Methods. A vaccine-dose IDEA score was developed for each of the 14 vaccination events in the 4:3:1:3:3 combination series (4 diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus:3 polio:1 measles-mumps-rubella:3 Haemophilus influenzae type B:3 hepatitis B). Assessing the actual age of administration with reference to the recommended age of administration generates the vaccine-dose IDEA score. A child’s composite IDEA score is obtained by averaging the 14 vaccine-dose IDEA scores. These composite IDEA scores, when averaged among children sampled within the MCO, constitute the MCO’s immunization score.

Setting. Retrospective analysis of childhood immunization datasets from a convenience sample of 6 MCOs in 5 states.

Results. HEDIS rates ranged from 57% to 75%. IDEA scores ranged from 80% to 90%. Relative rankings of MCO immunization performance were different using HEDIS rates and IDEA scores, respectively. At most, 16% of children in any of these MCOs received all of their immunizations fully on-time. From 47% to 77% of children experienced at least 3 delayed immunizations.

Conclusions. An immunization measure based on timeliness of administration yields both absolute and relative differences in MCO childhood immunization performance when compared with HEDIS rates. By assessing delivery of each component vaccination, the IDEA score permits more detailed analysis of immunization patterns within an MCO and focuses improvement efforts.

Key Words: immunization • measurement • quality • managed care

Abbreviations: HEDIS, Health Employer Data Information Set • MCO, managed care organization • IDEA, Immunization Delivery Effectiveness Assessment • VPD, vaccine-preventable disease • NIS, National Immunization Survey • DPT, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus • MMR, measles-mumps-rubella • HIB, Haemophilus influenzae type B • HBV, hepatitis B • AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics • ACIP, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice • a-AOA, actual age-of-administration • DOL, days-of-life • L-AOA, latest acceptable age of administration

Received for publication Jun 12, 2002; accepted Feb 27, 2003.

Copyright © 2003 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Disclaimer]