Effect of telephone reminder/recall on adolescent immunization and preventive visits: results from a randomized clinical trial. The impact of reminder-recall interventions on low vaccination coverage in an inner-city population. Quality improvement in immunization delivery following an unsuccessful immunization recall. The effect of microcomputer-generated reminders on influenza vaccination rates in a university-based family practice center. A computerized reminder system to increase the use of preventive care for hospitalized patients. Challenges and successes of immunization registry reminders at inner-city practices. Evaluation of a follow-up system in a county health department's immunization clinic. A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease. Evaluation of telephoned computer-generated reminders to improve immunization coverage at inner-city clinics.
To measure the effect of telephone-based reminder/recall on immunization and well-child care (WCC) visit rates among adolescents in urban practices.
                Randomized clinical trial of telephone-based reminder/recall over 18 months.
                Four urban primary care practices.
                Adolescents aged 11 to 14 years.Intervention Adolescents within practices were randomized to study (n = 1496) or control groups (n = 1510). The study group was sent audiotaped telephone reminders about a scheduled or needed immunization or WCC visit. Households were called weekly if there was no response; telephone numbers were updated weekly. Controls received standard care.
                Baseline demographics and immunization and WCC visit rates were similar for study and control groups. The intervention was largely ineffective in improving immunization or WCC visit rates. Although at the end of the study, the study group had slightly higher hepatitis B coverage (3 vaccinations) (62% vs 57.8%; P = .02), WCC visits were the same (53% and 54%), and impact on other vaccinations was minimal. The effect of reminder/recall was equivalent across demographic subgroups (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, insurance). The major factor limiting intervention effectiveness was inaccurate telephone numbers. Seventy-one percent of study subjects with single telephone numbers throughout the study had a WCC visit vs 25% of study subjects with multiple/changed telephone numbers and 54% of controls (P<.001).
                An intensive telephone reminder and recall system was only minimally successful in improving immunization and WCC visit rates among urban adolescents. Lack of success was largely owing to changed or inaccurate telephone numbers. Reminder-recall interventions have improved immunization rates in numerous studies.
                To evaluate the impact of large-scale, registry-based reminder-recall interventions on low immunization rates in an inner-city population.
                Randomized, controlled, effectiveness trial.
                Fulton County, Georgia.
                A total of 3050 children (76% black, 14% Hispanic, 7% white, and 3% other or unknown; median age, 9 months; range, 1-14 months) identified in an immunization registry as receiving health care in the public sector.
                Each child was randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: control (usual care), autodialer (automated telephone or mail reminder recall), outreach (in-person telephone, mail, or home visit recall), and combination (autodialer with outreach backup). Interventions continued until the child reached 24 months of age.
                Completion by the age of 24 months of the 4-3-1-3 vaccination series based on intention-to-treat analysis.
                A total of 260 (34%) of the 763 patients in the control group, 306 (40%) of the 763 in the autodialer group, 284 (37%) of the 760 in the outreach group, and 293 (38%) of 764 in the combination group completed the vaccination series.
                Large-scale, registry-based reminder-recall interventions produced only small improvements in low immunization rates of an inner-city population. Within a clinic serving disadvantaged children, 1) to evaluate a multifaceted quality improvement (QI) project to improve immunization (IZ) up-to-date (UTD) rates and 2) to assess the efficacy of IZ reminder/recall performed following QI.
                A year-long QI project followed by a trial of reminder/recall. QI interventions were targeted at previously identified barriers to IZ and were designed specifically to improve the efficacy of reminder/recall. QI interventions were designed to 1) increase the use of medical record releases to document IZs received elsewhere; 2) improve the accuracy of parental contact information; and 3) reduce missed opportunities by utilizing chart prompts, provider education, and provider reminders. Following QI, we conducted a randomized trial of reminder/recall.
                UTD rates for 7-11 month olds increased from 21% before the QI project to 52% after (P <.0001); rates for 12-18 month olds increased from 16% before QI to 44% after (P <.0001); 19-25 month olds 18% before to 33% after (P <.001). After QI, an average of 61 records per month were updated with IZs received elsewhere. However, the accuracy of parental contact information worsened (29% unreachable before QI vs 44% after, P <.001) and missed opportunities did not improve (8% before vs 6% after, P = not significant [NS]). A subsequent trial of reminder/recall did not increase UTD rates, with 17% of recalled children brought UTD vs 16% of controls (P = NS).
                Clinic-based QI increased documented UTD rates in a disadvantaged patient population. However, IZ reminder/recall did not further increase UTD rates above the rates achieved by the QI process. Less than 20 percent of elderly and other high-risk persons targeted for annual influenza vaccination are immunized each year. In most busy practice settings, it is difficult for primary care physicians to identify every patient in need of preventive health interventions. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of microcomputer-generated reminders on influenza vaccination rates in a university-based family practice center. The practice uses an interactive encounter form system from which updated clinical information is routinely entered into a cumulative database. During a 2-month period, 686 patients were identified in the database as eligible to receive influenza vaccine according to accepted criteria. Practice physicians (n = 32) were stratified by level of training and randomized to one of three groups, thereby receiving printed reminders on the encounter forms of all, none, or half of their eligible patients. Patients of physicians who always received reminders were more likely to receive influenza vaccine during the study period than patients of the never-reminded physicians (51 percent versus 30 percent, P less than 0.001). Patients whose physicians received reminders for only half their patients had an intermediate likelihood of receiving a vaccination if a reminder was printed (38 percent) but were less likely than the patients of never-reminded physicians to receive the vaccine if no reminder was printed (20 percent, P less than 0.001). This study suggests that physicians learn to depend on reminders for preventive health activities and that reminders are most effective when they are provided at every patient encounter. Although they are effective in outpatient settings, computerized reminders have not been proved to increase preventive care in inpatient settings.
                We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of computerized reminders on the rates at which four preventive therapies were ordered for inpatients. During an 18-month study period, a computerized system processed on-line information for all 6371 patients admitted to a general-medicine service (for a total of 10,065 hospitalizations), generating preventive care reminders as appropriate. Physicians who were in the intervention group viewed these reminders when they were using a computerized order-entry system for inpatients.
                The reminder system identified 3416 patients (53.6 percent) as eligible for preventive measures that had not been ordered by the admitting physician. For patients with at least one indication, computerized reminders resulted in higher adjusted ordering rates for pneumococcal vaccination (35.8 percent of the patients in the intervention group vs. 0.8 percent of those in the control group, P<0.001), influenza vaccination (51.4 percent vs. 1.0 percent, P< 0.001), prophylactic heparin (32.2 percent vs. 18.9 percent, P<0.001), and prophylactic aspirin at discharge (36.4 percent vs. 27.6 percent, P<0.001).
                A majority of hospitalized patients in this study were eligible for preventive measures, and computerized reminders significantly increased the rate of delivery of such therapies. To assess the effectiveness of two serial registry reminder protocols and the interactive effects of reminders with child characteristics on immunization rates.
                At an inner city practice network in New York City we randomized 1662 children aged 6 weeks-15 months due or late for a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) to 3 groups: continuous reminders (as needed), limited reminders (up to 3) and controls, for 6 months. Reminders were triggered by the hospital registry and immunizations were tracked with both the hospital and city registries. Analyses were based on intention to treat.
                At randomization, the study groups were comparable (9.2 months of age, 77% Latino, 86% Medicaid, 49.3% up-to date). A quarter of the children were sent false reminders, 15% had incorrect contact information, and 15% had missed opportunities for vaccination. In the univariate analysis, reminders improved coverage rates, but only for the children sent continuous reminders (51.2% vs. 44.9% controls, p < .01). Multivariate analysis showed reminders had no independent effect on immunization outcomes. Age, up-to-date and Medicaid status at randomization were strong predictors of a child receiving any subsequent immunization. However, reminders interacted synergistically with Medicaid to increase the likelihood of receiving an immunization.
                At an inner city practice network, registry reminders were not effective at improving immunization outcomes due to major system barriers. Immunization registries are powerful vehicles for identifying children in need of immunizations and generating reminders but system challenges must be addressed if this promise is to be achieved in inner city practices. We designed a pilot follow-up system using two mailed reminders and evaluated it for use in the immunization clinic of a relatively large county health department in Washington State. Compliance with the recommended interval for DTP immunizations increased by 33.9% in the group of children receiving two postcard reminders compared to the control group. Over half of the respondents (52%) in the control group and 28% in the intervention group reported that transportation barriers and clinic problems prevented their return. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system.
                We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care.
                The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD. We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care (based on five measures) and overall CAD care (based on four measures). We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system.
                Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low. While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.67) and CAD (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55), the impact of individual reminders was variable. A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD. The majority of physicians (76%) thought that reminders improved quality of care.
                An integrated electronic reminder system resulted in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD. These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist. The authors evaluated the effectiveness of computer-generated telephoned reminders used to raise the rates of on-time immunization among preschool-age children in two public clinics in Atlanta, GA. The overall effect of the intervention on immunization levels appeared to be minimal (crude relative risk = 1.07, 95 percent confidence interval = 0.78, 1.46), in part because only about 80 percent of children in both the randomly selected intervention group and in the control group were members of a household with a telephone number listed in clinic records. However, logistic regression analysis indicated that 36 of 68 children (52.9 percent) in the intervention group whose households were reached were vaccinated within 30 days of their due dates, compared to 31 of 75 children (41.3 percent) in the control group whose household telephone numbers were recorded but not called (adjusted odds ratio = 2.12, 95 percent confidence interval = 1.01, 4.46). This analysis indicates that telephoned reminders demonstrated a level of effectiveness in improving immunization levels at inner-city clinics that recommends further trial and study.
Patient reminder and recall systems in primary care settings are effective in improving immunization rates in developed countries.