They upgraded their system in spring 2012 to Crenolanib manufacturer include barcode scanning functionality [19]. CHIP requires staff to enter data through a combination of typing data and drop-down menus ( Fig. 3). For barcoded vaccines, immunizers scanned the vial to populate the client’s record with the vaccine name and lot number; expiry date was not recorded. For non-barcoded vaccines, immunizers used CHIP’s conventional methods (i.e., typing in lot

number and using drop-down menus for vaccine name and other data). Immunization staff were provided with scanners (DS6700, Motorola Ltd., United States, $522) and stands (Intellistand for DS67xx series, Motorola Ltd., Unites, States, $55), as well as a group training session by OKAKI staff to demonstrate the scanning process. After obtaining informed consent from the immunization nurses, we collected the following: (i) Immunization record quality – After the immunizer recorded vaccine data, we audited the record,

examining the completeness and accuracy of the relevant data fields (vaccine name, lot number, and expiry date [the latter for APH only]) compared to the information on the vial. Based on earlier work and information from immunization this website managers, we assumed a 1% data entry error rate with barcode scanning and 5% data entry error rate with the manual method. Collecting data for 666 vaccinations per case study (333 barcoded vials and 333 non-barcoded vials) allowed us to detect this difference in data quality with 80% power and 5% alpha-level. We compared data quality of the immunization records using z-tests, where the proportions of immunization records with one or more errors in the vaccine name, lot number, or expiry date fields for barcoded

vials and non-barcoded vials were compared. We used the t-test to compare the average time required by immunization staff to record vaccine data using barcode scanning and the manual method. We assessed readability of barcode scanning by recording the number of barcoded vials that could not be scanned successfully. Analyses were performed using STATA 10 (StataCorp LP, College Station, United DNA ligase States). The interviews were imported into qualitative analysis software (N-Vivo Version 9.0, QSR International, Burlington, United States) to facilitate data organization, review, coding, analysis, and exploration of themes that emerged from the data. Two team members (JAP and SQ) read each transcript once to get an overall sense of the data, and then again to code. Consensus decision-making was used to arrive at mutually agreed-upon coding. For Study Site 1, we collected data from 282 barcoded vials and 346 non-barcoded vials over 21 immunization clinic days between July 23 and October 4 2012 (Table 2).