I agree wholeheartedly that the primary concern should be the data elements required to support immunization rather than the messaging standard.
However, I'm not convinced that we should prioritize the data elements required to record new immunizations at the expense of historical immunizations. Monitoring vaccine safety and efficacy are important goals, but we also want to collect immunization data in a way that supports reminder/recall strategies aimed at increasing coverage rates. An historical immunization record is somewhat different than other medical histories in that it impacts a client's future immunization forecast (i.e., when they are eligible, due, or overdue for the next dose in the series) in a way that benefits from codification. One of the key benefits of Infoway's SNOMED CT vaccine terminology is that it includes generic terms that are especially useful for recording vaccine histories when the actual product administered isn't known (e.g., "Hepatitis A vaccine" vs AVAXIM or HAVRIX ). The generic codes can be used with immunization schedule logic to generate a forecast for the client.
I don't know much about MedDRA; what would be the reasons for using it instead of SNOMED CT for immunization histories?
Thankyou to Michel Trottier for highlighting the need to agree on the immunization information that should be captured and shared. Based on an email exchange priori to posting this message, Michel agrees it is best to set aside the messaging aspect and agree on the information that is needed by clinicians for recording immunizations. In other words if there is agreement on the data elements and values (derived from the information required), these “common data elements and values” can be used with any messaging solution (V2, V3 – MR/CeRX, FHIR or CDA).
Michel further suggests that most interest is in properly recording new immunisations in order to proactively monitor safety and efficacy; historical vaccinations can be documented in the eMR as medical history using a standard terminology, like MedDRA.
If there is interest from the community, Michel (who would invite some experts) and I will be happy to support subsequent discussions and efforts in the Public Health Surveillance community in the identification of common data elements and values for recording and sharing immunization information.
If this topic is of interest to you , please reply to this post.
Beverly
During the SCWG4 meeting held yesterday (Jan 28th), an offer was made to present again the advantages of using the MR standard, rather than CeRx, for Immunization Messages.
The uniform adoption of the same standard for the same type of information is in the common interest of all those that have the potential need to share that information.
Please reply to this post if you are interested in a presentation.
Improving the quality of patient care through the effective sharing of clinical information among health care organizations, clinicians and their patients.
Immunization msgs Stds: MR in lieu of CeRx
Print
Email
Twitter