SummaryBackgroundInfants in the UK were first offered a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) in 2006, given at 2 and 4 months of age and a booster dose at 13 months (2 + 1 schedule). A 13-valent vaccine (PCV13) replaced PCV7 in 2010. We aimed to compare the post-booster antibody response in UK infants given a reduced priming schedule of PCV13 (ie, a 1 + 1 schedule) versus the current 2 + 1 schedule and to assess the potential effect on population protection.MethodsIn this multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial, we recuited infants due to receive their primary immunisations aged up to 13 weeks on first vaccinations by information booklets mailed out via the NHS Child Health Information Service and the UK National Health Application and Infrastructure Services. Eligible infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PCV13 at 2, 4, and 12 months (2 + 1 schedule) or 3 and 12 months of age (1 + 1 schedule) delivered with other routine vaccinations. Randomisation was done by computer-generated permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six. Participants and clinical trial staff were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was serotype-specific immunoglobulin G concentrations values (geometric mean concentrations [GMC] in μg/mL) measured in blood samples collected at 13 months of age. Analysis was by modified intention to treat with all individuals included by randomised group if they had a laboratory result. This trial is registered on the EudraCT clinical trial database, number 2015-000817-32, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02482636.FindingsBetween September, 2015, and June, 2016, 376 infants were assessed for eligibility. 81 infants were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria (n=50) or for other reasons (n=31). 213 eligible infants were enrolled and randomly allocated to group 1 (n=106; 2 + 1 schedule) or to group 2 (n=107; 1 + 1 schedule). In group 1, 91 serum samples were available for analysis 1 month after booster immunisation versus 86 in group 2. At month 13, post-booster, GMCs were equivalent between schedules for serotypes 3 (0·61 μg/mL in group 1 vs 0·62 μg/mL in group 2), 5 (1·74 μg/mL vs 2·11 μg/mL), 7F (3·98 μg/mL vs 3·36 μg/mL), 9V (2·34 μg/mL vs 2·50 μg/mL), and 19A (8·38 μg/mL vs 8·83 μg/mL). Infants given the 1 + 1 schedule had significantly greater immunogenicity post-booster than those given the 2 + 1 schedule for serotypes 1 (8·92 μg/mL vs 3·07 μg/mL), 4 (3·43 μg/mL vs 2·55 μg/mL), 14 (16·9 μg/mL vs 10·49 μg/mL), and 19F (14·76 μg/mL vs 11·12 μg/mL; adjusted p value range <0·001 to 0·047). The 2 + 1 schedule was superior for serotypes 6A, 6B, 18C and 23F (adjusted p value range <0·0001 to 0·017). In a predefined numerical subset of all of the infants recruited to the study (n=40 [20%]), functional serotype-specific antibody was similar between schedules. 26 serious adverse events were recorded in 21 (10%) infants across the study period; 18 (n=13) were in the 2 + 1 group and eight (n=8) in the 1 + 1 group. Only one serious adverse event, a hi...

No abstract

Background: Health records are the basis of clinical coding. In Portugal, relevant diagnoses and procedures are abstracted and categorised using an internationally accepted classification system and the resulting codes, together with the administrative data, are then grouped into diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Hospital reimbursement is partially calculated from the DRGs. Moreover, the administrative database generated with these data is widely used in research and epidemiology, among other purposes. Objective: To explore the perceptions of medical coders (medical doctors) regarding possible problems with health records that may affect the quality of coded data. Method: A qualitative design using four focus groups sessions with 10 medical coders was undertaken between October and November 2017. The convenience sample was obtained from four public hospitals in Portugal. Questions related to problems with the coding process were developed from the literature and authors’ expertise. The focus groups sessions were taped, transcribed and analysed to elicit themes. Results: There are several problems, identified by the focus groups, in health records that influence the coded data: the lack of or unclear documented information; the variability in diagnosis description; “copy & paste”; and the lack of solutions to solve these problems. Conclusion and implications: The use of standards in health records, audits and physician awareness could increase the quality of health records, contributing to improvements in the quality of coded data, and in the fulfilment of its purposes (e.g. more accurate payments and more reliable research).