1 / 12

Tracking State-Level Implementation of H1N1 Vaccination Grantees

Tracking State-Level Implementation of H1N1 Vaccination Grantees. Sarah Clark Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit (CHEAR) University of Michigan National Immunization Conference April 21, 2010. Background. H1N1 vaccine implementation was characterized by:

tass
Télécharger la présentation

Tracking State-Level Implementation of H1N1 Vaccination Grantees

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tracking State-Level Implementation of H1N1 Vaccination Grantees Sarah Clark Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit (CHEAR) University of Michigan National Immunization Conference April 21, 2010

  2. Background • H1N1 vaccine implementation was characterized by: • Federal guidance and structure • Flexible implementation at the program level • No existing mechanism to track implementation across states

  3. Background • UM team collected situational awareness data on H1N1 vaccine implementation • September 2009 – February 2010 • Collaborative approach • Short-term feedback • Lessons learned based on experiences

  4. Purpose • To describe some of the key influences on state implementation of H1N1 vaccination

  5. Key Influences • States had varying goals for their H1N1 vaccine campaigns: • Make vaccine available to whoever wants it. • Vaccinate as many people as possible. • Vaccinate high-risk individuals first. • Goals established the perspective for key decisions

  6. Key Influences • State immunization officials had varying relationships with other key agencies prior to H1N1: • Preparedness • Epidemiology • Education • Medical licensure

  7. Key Influences • States have varying public health capacity: • Almost no public health departments • City/county/regional health departments that are agents of the state • City/county/regional health departments that are autonomous • Range of LPH: 1 to 350 • Variety of service delivery across LPH

  8. Key Influences • States began the campaign with variable information infrastructure: • Immunization information systems • Databases of providers • Communication systems • States had variable IT support • New mechanisms needed for registration, allocation, doses administered reporting

  9. Key Influences • States were highly variable in their existing relationships with other immunization providers and settings: • Hospitals • Adult immunization providers • Pharmacies and community vaccinators • Schools

  10. Lessons Learned • Flexibility in implementation of H1N1 vaccination was essential to • accommodate existing state differences • allow for different choices • States should build on their H1N1 efforts • New relationships with providers and other state agencies • Information systems

  11. Acknowledgments • University of Michigan team: Anne Cowan, Brian Macilvain, Gary Freed • AIM: Claire Hannan, Katelyn Wells • Immunization program officials

More Related