Comparison of Office-Based Versus Outsourced Immunization Recall Services

Kristina L. Bondurant, J. Gary Wheeler, Zoran Bursac, Tereasa Holmes, J. Mick Tilford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Given poor use of recall in primary care practices, we compared outsourced versus office-based recall systems. Study Design: From 2011 to 2013, we enrolled 87 individual Arkansas providers in distinct practices treating their own patients <24 months of age which were randomized to usual care (A), office-based (B), or outsourced (C) recall groups. Results: At the end of study, recall activity was 19.4%, 55.0%, and 92.6% for Groups A, B, and C, respectively (B and C vs A: P <.001). Only 68 Group B patients were identified as needing immunizations versus 826 in Group C. The majority of successful contacts were made through mobile phone (41.3%) or text message (32.6%). The total cost per practice per week was significantly lower for Group C versus Group B ($39.50 and $53.00, respectively; P =.004). Conclusions: With limited electronic health record use, an outsourced recall system is more sustainable and less costly than an office-based system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)555-563
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Pediatrics
Volume56
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Immunization
Text Messaging
Cell Phones
Electronic Health Records
Primary Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Comparison of Office-Based Versus Outsourced Immunization Recall Services. / Bondurant, Kristina L.; Wheeler, J. Gary; Bursac, Zoran; Holmes, Tereasa; Tilford, J. Mick.

In: Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 56, No. 6, 01.01.2017, p. 555-563.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bondurant, Kristina L. ; Wheeler, J. Gary ; Bursac, Zoran ; Holmes, Tereasa ; Tilford, J. Mick. / Comparison of Office-Based Versus Outsourced Immunization Recall Services. In: Clinical Pediatrics. 2017 ; Vol. 56, No. 6. pp. 555-563.
@article{ebcae0a70d214d22a144a7a37202c701,
title = "Comparison of Office-Based Versus Outsourced Immunization Recall Services",
abstract = "Objective: Given poor use of recall in primary care practices, we compared outsourced versus office-based recall systems. Study Design: From 2011 to 2013, we enrolled 87 individual Arkansas providers in distinct practices treating their own patients <24 months of age which were randomized to usual care (A), office-based (B), or outsourced (C) recall groups. Results: At the end of study, recall activity was 19.4{\%}, 55.0{\%}, and 92.6{\%} for Groups A, B, and C, respectively (B and C vs A: P <.001). Only 68 Group B patients were identified as needing immunizations versus 826 in Group C. The majority of successful contacts were made through mobile phone (41.3{\%}) or text message (32.6{\%}). The total cost per practice per week was significantly lower for Group C versus Group B ($39.50 and $53.00, respectively; P =.004). Conclusions: With limited electronic health record use, an outsourced recall system is more sustainable and less costly than an office-based system.",
author = "Bondurant, {Kristina L.} and Wheeler, {J. Gary} and Zoran Bursac and Tereasa Holmes and Tilford, {J. Mick}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0009922816673307",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "555--563",
journal = "Clinical Pediatrics",
issn = "0009-9228",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Office-Based Versus Outsourced Immunization Recall Services

AU - Bondurant, Kristina L.

AU - Wheeler, J. Gary

AU - Bursac, Zoran

AU - Holmes, Tereasa

AU - Tilford, J. Mick

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Objective: Given poor use of recall in primary care practices, we compared outsourced versus office-based recall systems. Study Design: From 2011 to 2013, we enrolled 87 individual Arkansas providers in distinct practices treating their own patients <24 months of age which were randomized to usual care (A), office-based (B), or outsourced (C) recall groups. Results: At the end of study, recall activity was 19.4%, 55.0%, and 92.6% for Groups A, B, and C, respectively (B and C vs A: P <.001). Only 68 Group B patients were identified as needing immunizations versus 826 in Group C. The majority of successful contacts were made through mobile phone (41.3%) or text message (32.6%). The total cost per practice per week was significantly lower for Group C versus Group B ($39.50 and $53.00, respectively; P =.004). Conclusions: With limited electronic health record use, an outsourced recall system is more sustainable and less costly than an office-based system.

AB - Objective: Given poor use of recall in primary care practices, we compared outsourced versus office-based recall systems. Study Design: From 2011 to 2013, we enrolled 87 individual Arkansas providers in distinct practices treating their own patients <24 months of age which were randomized to usual care (A), office-based (B), or outsourced (C) recall groups. Results: At the end of study, recall activity was 19.4%, 55.0%, and 92.6% for Groups A, B, and C, respectively (B and C vs A: P <.001). Only 68 Group B patients were identified as needing immunizations versus 826 in Group C. The majority of successful contacts were made through mobile phone (41.3%) or text message (32.6%). The total cost per practice per week was significantly lower for Group C versus Group B ($39.50 and $53.00, respectively; P =.004). Conclusions: With limited electronic health record use, an outsourced recall system is more sustainable and less costly than an office-based system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019182646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019182646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0009922816673307

DO - 10.1177/0009922816673307

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 555

EP - 563

JO - Clinical Pediatrics

JF - Clinical Pediatrics

SN - 0009-9228

IS - 6

ER -