Last data update: Jan 27, 2025. (Total: 48650 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Pike JJ[original query] |
---|
Patient flow time data of COVID-19 vaccination clinics in 23 sites, United States, April and May 2021.
Cho BH , Athar HM , Bates LG , Yarnoff BO , Harris LQ , Washington ML , Jones-Jack NH , Pike JJ . Vaccine 2022 41 (3) 750-755 INTRODUCTION: Public health department (PHD) led COVID-19 vaccination clinics can be a critical component of pandemic response as they facilitate high volume of vaccination. However, few patient-time analyses examining patient throughput at mass vaccination clinics with unique COVID-19 vaccination challenges have been published. METHODS: During April and May of 2021, 521 patients in 23 COVID-19 vaccination sites counties of 6 states were followed to measure the time spent from entry to vaccination. The total time was summarized and tabulated by clinic characteristics. A multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between vaccination clinic settings and patient waiting times in the clinic. RESULTS: The average time a patient spent in the clinic from entry to vaccination was 9 min 5 s (range: 02:00-23:39). Longer patient flow times were observed in clinics with higher numbers of doses administered, 6 or fewer vaccinators, walk-in patients accepted, dedicated services for people with disabilities, and drive-through clinics. The multivariate linear regression showed that longer patient waiting times were significantly associated with the number of vaccine doses administered, dedicated services for people with disabilities, the availability of more than one brand of vaccine, and rurality. CONCLUSIONS: Given the standardized procedures outlined by immunization guidelines, reducing the wait time is critical in lowering the patient flow time by relieving the bottleneck effect in the clinic. Our study suggests enhancing the efficiency of PHD-led vaccination clinics by preparing vaccinators to provide vaccines with proper and timely support such as training or delivering necessary supplies and paperwork to the vaccinators. In addition, patient wait time can be spent answering questions about vaccination or reviewing educational materials on other public health services. |
Assessment of the Costs of Implementing COVID-19 Vaccination Clinics in 34 Sites, United States, March 2021.
Yarnoff BO , Pike JJ , Athar HM , Bates LG , Tayebali ZA , Harris LQ , Jones-Jack NH , Washington ML , Cho BH . J Public Health Manag Pract 2022 28 (6) 624-630 OBJECTIVES: To estimate the costs to implement public health department (PHD)-run COVID-19 vaccination clinics. DESIGN: Retrospectively reported data on COVID-19 vaccination clinic characteristics and resources used during a high-demand day in March 2021. These resources were combined with national average wages, supply costs, and facility costs to estimate the operational cost and start-up cost of clinics. SETTING: Thirty-four PHD-run COVID-19 vaccination clinics across 8 states and 1 metropolitan statistical area. PARTICIPANTS: Clinic managers at 34 PHD-run COVID-19 vaccination clinics. INTERVENTION: Large-scale COVID-19 vaccination clinics were implemented by public health agencies as part of the pandemic response. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Operational cost per day, operational cost per vaccination, start-up cost per clinic. RESULTS: Median operational cost per day for a clinic was $10 314 (range, $637-$95 163) and median cost per vaccination was $38 (range, $9-$206). There was a large range of operational costs across clinics. Clinics used an average of 99 total staff hours per 100 patients vaccinated. Median start-up cost per clinic was $15 348 (range, $1 409-$165 190). CONCLUSIONS: Results show that clinics require a large range of resources to meet the high throughput needs of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Estimating the costs of PHD-run vaccination clinics for the pandemic response is essential for ensuring that resources are available for clinic success. If clinics are not adequately supported, they may stop functioning, which would slow the pandemic response if no other setting or approach is possible. |
Recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: A reference, not a rule book
Carias C , Chesson HW , Grosse SD , Li R , Meltzer MI , Miller GF , Murphy LB , Nurmagambetov TA , Pike JJ , Whitham HK . Am J Prev Med 2018 54 (4) 600-602 Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), as noted by the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (herein, the Second Panel), “provides a framework for comparing the relative value of different interventions, along with information that can help decision makers sort through alternatives and decide which ones best serve their programmatic and financial needs.”1 The CEA, as well as other methods of economic evaluation, such as budgetary impact analysis and cost–benefit analysis, can inform health policy decisions. In 1996, the first Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (herein, the First Panel) issued recommendations intended to improve the quality and comparability of CEA studies.2 The Second Panel has provided updated recommendations on the conduct, documentation, and reporting of CEAs with the same general intent.3 |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Jan 27, 2025
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure