CDC NIP/NIC Page
CDC NIP/NIC Home Page

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 11:25 AM
77

Influenza Vaccine Delay from the Primary Care Physician's Perspective

Lon McQuillan1, Matthew F. Daley2, Lori A. Crane3, Pascale M. Wortley4, Brenda L. Beaty5, Jennifer Barrow5, Christine Babbel5, Miriam Dickinson6, and Allison Kempe2. (1) Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Denver, Mailstop F443, Bldg 406, 12477 E. 19th Ave, PO Box 6508, Aurora, CO, USA, (2) Children's Outcomes Research Program, The Children's Hospital, Dept. of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Denver, (3) Preventive Medicine & Biometrics, University of Colorado Denver, (4) Health Services Research & Evaluation Branch, National Immunization Program, CDC, (5) Colorado Health Outcomes Program, University of Colorado Denver, (6) Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Denver


Learning Objectives for this Presentation:
By the end of the presentation participants will be able to describe physician opinions regarding influenza vaccine delay.

Background:
Little is known about how physicians define influenza vaccine delay and how vaccine delays affect practice in a non-vaccine shortage season.

Objectives:
To describe among primary care physicians nationally in 2006-07, a non-shortage season: 1) physician definitions of influenza vaccine delay; 2) the extent of reported vaccine delays; and 3) the effects of delays.

Methods:
Survey administered 3/2007-6/2007 to 1,269 primary care physicians participating in a national network representative of the memberships of the American Academy of Pediatrics, College of Physicians, and Academy of Family Physicians.

Results:
Response rate was 74% (n=940). Physicians defined “influenza vaccine delay” as not having received vaccine by: 10/1 (20%), 10/15 (26%), 11/1 (33%), 11/15 (12%), and 12/1 or later (9%). Fifty-three percent reported experiencing a vaccine delay. Providers identified the following effects of delays: patient/parental dissatisfaction (72%); decreased vaccination rates (65%); difficulty scheduling influenza shot clinics (55%); and the negative financial impact caused by unused vaccine (47%). Those who experienced delays compared to those who did not more often reported: not meeting demand for vaccine (41% vs. 6%; p<0.0001); referring ≥10% of patients for vaccination elsewhere (68% vs. 20%; p<0.0001); and having ≥10% vaccine unused at the end of the season (33% vs. 24%; p=0.007).

Conclusions:
In a non-shortage season, the majority of providers reported influenza vaccine delays, although provider expectations for vaccine arrival varied substantially. Experiencing a delay was thought to affect patient satisfaction, adequacy of vaccine delivery, and having unused vaccine remaining at the end of the season. Because of the unpredictability inherent in the current influenza vaccine production process, providers may need to adjust expectations regarding timing of vaccine receipt and vaccine delivery practices.