A Clinical Audit of Vaccination in Patients Living with Inflammatory Arthritis and Receiving Specialty Medications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives Both ACR and EULAR recommend appropriate vaccination for patients with inflammatory arthritis due to their higher risk of vaccine-preventable illness (VPI).[1,2] Immunosuppressive therapies may further increase VPI risk. Understanding baseline vaccination rates is crucial for implementing targeted quality improvement strategies. Methods A chart review was performed on South Health Campus Rheumatology Clinic patients who were a) seen between January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024, b) over the age of 18, c) diagnosed with inflammatory arthritis (RA, PsA, AS, SpA, etc.), and d) were taking either biologic or JAK inhibitor pharmacotherapy. Vaccinations against influenza, COVID-19, pneumonia (Prevnar 13/20, Pneumovax-23), and shingles (Shingrix) were reviewed. Both physicians and stable nurse clinics patients were included. Descriptive statistics were performed for data analysis. Results 216 patient charts were audited (Figure 1). We found that 97% (210/216) of patients had a recommendation for updating or achieving full vaccination noted in their rheumatology consult notes. 53.2% of patients (115/216) received annual influenza vaccine, with 66.6% (64/96) in nurse clinics vs 42.5% (51/120) in physician clinics. 64.6% (73/113) of patients >65 received this vaccination c.f. 40.6% (41/101) <65. 69.9% of patients received > 3 mRNA COVID vaccines with 79.2% (76/96) of vaccinations in nurse clinics vs 42.5% (75/120) in physician clinics. 84.1% (95/113) of patients age >65 received vaccination c.f. 54.4% (55/101) <65. 55.5% of patients received Prevnar 13 or 20: 68.7% (66/96) in nurse clinics vs 45% (54/120) in physician clinics. 63.7% (72/113) of patients age >65 received vaccination c.f. 45.5% (46/101) of patients <65. 68.5% of patients received Pneumovax-23: 81.2% (78/96) in nurse clinics vs 58.3% (70/120) in physician clinics. 89.4% (72/113) of patients age >65 received vaccination c.f. 45.5% (46/101) <65. 28.7% of patients received Shingrix: 36.4% (35/96) in nurse clinics vs 17.5% (27/120) in physician clinics. 35.4% (40/113) of patients >age 65 received vaccination c.f. 21.8% (22/101) of patients <65. Conclusion In this audit we found increased vaccination rates in the nurse clinic and among patients > 65 years old. High vaccination rates observed in the nurse clinic likely resulted from dedicated preventative health protocols, clinical stability of nurse clinic patients, and physician/nursing collaboration. Higher rates of >65 vaccination was likely due to increased vaccine receptiveness of older adults, public coverage and outreach programs (programs focusing on vaccination for patients in congregate living), clinic promotion efforts, and community (family physician, pharmacy) promotion of vaccination. [1.] Bass AR. Arthritis Care & Research 2023;75(3):449-64. [2.] Furer V. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(1):39-52.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».