Findings Report: 

2D Vaccine 

Barcode Scalability 

Pilot

Prepared for 

Immunization Services Division 

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Prepared by 

Deloitte Consulting LLP

May 2018 

These bad boys are 

a game-changer

Pilot Participant
- 2 -

2D Barcode Scanning: The Need, Current Pilot and Findings At-A-Glance

Issue

 >100 million vaccines administered annually in the US

 Most vaccines in ambulatory settings still manually 

recorded (typed into electronic medical records), with 

documented entry errors and inefficiencies 

 Lot number, expiration date, and product ID printed 

in small font to fit on vaccine vials/syringes

 Scanning used in other contexts to aid patient safety

 Accuracy of vaccine records critical to patient safety 

and in the event of vaccine recall or disease pandemic

Opportunity

 2D barcode scanning technology is available and 2D 

barcodes are now on most vaccine products, but 

scanning is not widely used

 Two previous CDC pilots of 2D barcode scanning 

found improved accuracy, time savings, and user 

satisfaction, but challenges to implementation 

remained, including low scanning rates

 Even small improvements to vaccine record accuracy 

or efficiencies can have meaningful impact due to 

volume of vaccines and consequences of inaccuracies

Current Pilot

 CDC partnered with a large health system to pilot 2D barcode scanning implementation across 27 diverse care centers 

(2015 – 2017); care centers varied by specialty, size, vaccine volume, geographic location

– Adherence strategy groups added to pilot to assess whether implementation changes could improve scanning rates 

 Data collected: deidentified EMR vaccination records, online survey, on-site observations, and group discussions

Main Pilot Findings

 Accuracy and completeness of vaccine data records improved from 5-9%, depending on data element

 Time savings of 21 seconds per vaccine recorded when scanned (versus non-scanned comparison) — 75% improvement

 High scanning rates overall (94% across pilot); variation in scanning rates by specialty, volume, strategy group, site; 

all adherence strategies effectively improved scanning rates, compared with training-only group

 Participants noted satisfaction, improved safety, efficiencies, and reduced strain with scanning

 Some sites and practitioners experienced challenges and struggled to implement scanning consistently
3

Findings Report Outline

1. What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

2. Our Pilot in Brief

3. Key Pilot Findings

4. Where to Go from Here?

5. Learn More About Our Work
4

What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

1. What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

2. Our Pilot in Brief

3. Key Pilot Findings

4. Where to Go from Here?

5. Learn More About Our Work
- 5 -

Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning

What's in a 2D barcode on a vaccine?

Vaccine two-dimensional (2D) barcodes contain more data than traditional, linear barcodes

How does it work?

Vaccinators scan the 2D barcode on a vaccine 

vial or syringe with a 2D barcode scanner, 

which then populates data into their electronic 

medical record (EMR)
6

Our Pilot in Brief

1. What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

2. Our Pilot in Brief

3. Key Pilot Findings

4. Where to Go from Here?

5. Learn More About Our Work
- 7 -

Selection of System, Sites, and Timeline for Pilot

Pilot planning began in August 2015, followed by protocol development, pilot system and site selection, 

scanner installation, data collection and analysis, through report completion in February 2018

Selection of Health Care System

 Recruitment Criteria for Health Care System

– Sutter Health selected based on criteria, 

including:

• Interest and willingness to participate

• Use of a single EMR systemwide that 

supported scanning

• Ability to confirm whether vaccine record 

scanned or not

Selection of Sites

 Selection of 27 Sites within the Health Care System

– Sites selected based on:

• Interest and willingness to participate

• Diversity of centers administering vaccines (e.g., 

pediatrics, vaccine clinic, internal medicine)

• Agreement to installation and use of scanners

• Agreement to data collection and assigned 

adherence strategy group
- 8 -

Pilot Data Sources Overview

Multiple sources of data assessed pilot implementation and feedback from participants.

Further descriptions of each data source provided at end of report.
- 9 -

“Nudging” Scanning Rates with Adherence Strategy Groups

Benefits of barcode scanning only realized when technology is actually used

Pilot sites were stratified, then randomly assigned to one of four adherence strategy groups to assess 

whether changes to implementation could improve scanning rates

Training Only

Training on use of 2D 

scanners and protocol for 

scanning

Training + No other steps

Commitment 

Card

Written personal rationale 

for scanning/signed 

commitment to scanning

Training + 

Commitment Card 

(shown below)

Scanning 

Adherence 

Report

Posted report – compares 

individuals at center and 

center to other centers

Training + 

Scanning Adherence Report 

(shown below)

Combination 

Combination of all previous 

strategies

Training + 

Commitment Card + 

Scanning Adherence Report 

Commitment Card Sample Scanning Adherence Report
10

Key Pilot Findings

1. What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

2. Our Pilot in Brief

3. Key Pilot Findings

4. Where to Go from Here?

5. Learn More About Our Work
- 11 -

Key Findings: Benefits, Challenges, & Feedback from 2D Scanning Implementation

Accuracy Increased

• When scanned:

–

–

–

Lot number improved 4.6% 

(to 99.7%) 

Expiration date improved 9.2% 

(to 99.97%) 

NDC improved 5.7% (to 99.99%)

• Improvements varied by specialty

Time Savings Observed

• 21 seconds saved per vaccine 

entered when scanned 

(average 7 seconds scanned, 28 

seconds not scanned)

• One site added 12+ 

appointments per week with 

time saved

Scanning Rates Varied

• High scanning rates overall (94%

of vaccines given during pilot)

• Variation in scanning rate by site, 

specialty, volume, strategy group

• All adherence strategies (reports, 

cards) improved scanning rates, 

compared with training-only group

Scanner Fit Mattered

• Critical to find best fit of scanner 

location within context to 

ensure integration into workflow 

and consistent use

• Various scanner locations and 

set-up types effective across 

pilot sites

Users Satisfied

• Participants satisfied with their 

experience scanning (94%), want 

to continue scanning (97%), and 

found change in process 

worthwhile (96%) 

• Improved safety, reduced strain, 

and improved efficiency noted

Challenges Experienced

• Early pilot challenges: scanner 

location/workflow fit, staff/ 

leader buy-in, scanning glitches

• Remaining at end: workarounds, 

scanner location, buy-in

• Some sites and practitioners 

struggled to scan consistently
- 12 -

Lessons Learned from Pilot that Can Support Future Scaling Efforts

Several key lessons for successful vaccine scanning implementation became evident from the pilot 

data. This guidance can benefit other organizations embarking on this process.

Early Planning and Decisions Made a Big Difference (Take the Time to Get It Right From the Start)

• Sites that found early and lasting success with high and consistent scanning rates typically: 

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Revised their workflow process and protocol from the start

Strategically selected scanner location, with input from staff

Patterns of Use and Implementation Were Evident Early 

• Given the same information, tools, and strategies, sites performed differently, with differences seen early 

High volume sites, such as Pediatrics/Shot Clinic, scanned at high rates from the start until pilot end

Low vaccine volume sites, including Internal Medicine, struggled the most to scan consistently

Adherence Strategies “Nudged” Participants to Scan More Frequently

• All three groups with a strategy added to promote scanning had the highest scanning rates and the group 

receiving only the training had the lowest scanning rate

Increases to scanning rates aligned with the timing of each strategy implemented

• Scanning rates matter, as benefits of scanning are only realized if the technology is actually used

Adjustments to Resolve Challenges Mid-Course Improved Scanning Use

• Revisiting foundational planning decisions and making revisions improved scanning rates and buy-in

• Ideas for adjustments, even after implementation underway, include: 

Offering troubleshooting support to work through specific challenges, 

Providing data on scanning rates to staff and leaders, and 

Engaging leaders at sites and within organization
13

Accuracy
- 14 -

Scanning Greatly Improved Accuracy of Data

Vaccine lot number, expiration date, and NDC data fields significantly more accurate when scanned, 

rather than entered manually (p<.01) 

*A data element was considered “complete” if the field was not blank. “Accuracy” was determined by comparison with our reference file. Lot numbers and NDC matching the reference file 

were deemed “accurate,” whereas, records with something in the field, but without a match to the reference file were “inaccurate.” As lot numbers were needed to identify correct expiration 

dates, records with inaccurate or blank lot numbers were not included in the expiration date analysis. For NDC, matches to either the unit of use or unit of sale were counted as “accurate.”

Accuracy = Complete + Accurate Record 

(a record must first be complete (something is there) and data contained in the field is also accurate)

• Lot number field improved 4.6% (to 99.7%) when scanned

• Expiration date field improved 9.2% (to 99.97%) when scanned

• NDC field improved 5.7% (to 99.99%) when scanned
- 15 -

Accuracy Improvements Varied by Data Element and Specialty

• Improvements to record accuracy when vaccines scanned (compared with not scanned) ranged from 

2.7%-6.5% for lot number; 0%-11.6% for expiration date; and 2.7%-6.6% for NDC 

• Scanned records highly accurate (99.5%+) across specialties and data elements, with most variation in 

records not scanned

• Differences when scanned or not scanned statistically significant (except where noted)* 

*Statistically significant difference (p<.01) between scanned and not scanned accuracy of vaccine records for each specialty, within each data element, with the exception

of the expiration date field comparison for the shot clinic.
- 16 -

Why Accuracy Matters

Volume of Vaccines Given – With over 100 million vaccines likely administered annually in the US,* small 

improvements to vaccine record accuracy can have meaningful impact – a 1% improvement in data accuracy could 

impact a million or more vaccination records. Data accuracy in pilot sites improved by 5-9%. 

Compliance and Recall Support – Added accuracy and completeness of data recorded in the EMR aids 

compliance with requirements to record specific data elements (e.g., lot number, manufacturer). Accurately 

recorded lot numbers can also identify patients who need revaccination following a recall. 

Patient Safety – Scanning is regularly used elsewhere to aid patient safety during medication administration and 

for patient identification, among other uses. Further, pop-up notices included in some EMRs can alert staff to 

potential safety concerns. Increased accuracy of data with 2D scanning can ensure alerts as intended. Pilot sites 

received alerts if a scanned vaccine was expired or did not match the doctor's vaccine order.

Pilot Feedback

• About half of pilot survey respondents identified the pop-up notices as a benefit of 2D scanning

• 48 survey respondents (34% of survey participants) actually received one of these pop-up notices 

during the pilot (38 received a mismatch pop-up notice, 10 received the expired vaccine notice)

– Reasons for a mismatch (of the 38 respondents having received a mismatch pop-up notice):

Reason(s) for receiving mismatch notice (could select more than one) # Reporting

Clinician selected wrong vaccine from list of same type as that scanned** 20 

Clinician selected a specific brand rather than vaccine type** 15

Pulled the wrong vaccine from the refrigerator 8

Another reason 2

“We had an 

immunization error, 

HepB given instead 

of HepA. That was 

caught by the 

scanner "vaccine 

not ordered" when 

documenting after 

administration.” 

– Survey 

Respondent

*Estimated 130+ million vaccines likely administered to ages <18 years, extrapolated from sample (Rogers et al (2018); estimated 10 million given to <1 year of age (VAERS, 2015); over 150 

million doses of injectable flu vaccine available for 2017-2018 season (Flu CDC Key Facts 2017-18)

**E.g., brand selected may not match stock or version without preservatives available, but different version ordered; would not necessarily result in the wrong vaccine being administered
17

Time Savings 
- 18 -

Sites Could Realize 75% Improvement in Time Savings with Scanning

Time measurements comparing vaccine entry methods across nine of the pilot sites found an average of 

21 seconds saved per vaccine entered when vaccines scanned (average of 7.04 seconds when scanned 

and 28.19 seconds when not scanned*) – a 75% improvement

Potential Time Savings

• While time savings varied by site, the average calculates out to 5.83 hours saved per 1,000 vaccines scanned.

• These nine sites administered more than 45,000 vaccines during the six-month pilot. If each entry were 

scanned, time savings would total 262 hours saved (for these nine sites), ranging from 3-116 hours for 

individual sites based on volume scanned.

*Time measurements taken outside actual patient encounters to ensure protocol consistency (using a test EMR portal that functions the same way as the actual EMR); same protocol used 

and same vaccines recorded across both scanned and not scanned observations; measurements with 13 practitioners across 9 sites
- 19 -

Pilot Participants Described Time Savings From 2D Barcode Scanning

In addition to measured time savings, through group discussions and user survey feedback, practitioners 

noted time savings with 2D barcode scanning

Added 

12-14

appointments

One pediatric site described adding two 

vaccine-only appointments daily, for an 

additional 12 to 14 vaccine appointments 

per week due to time saved with the 

introduction of 2D barcode scanning. 

95%

“Scanning 

saves

me time”

95% of survey respondents (n=131) 

agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement, “Scanning saves me time.”

98%

“Able to record 

data quickly”

98% of survey respondents (n=135) agreed 

or strongly agreed with the statement, “I was 

able to record data quickly using 2D barcode 

scanning.”

“Faster process adds to 

patient satisfaction.”

– Survey Respondent

“Major time savings, not 

having to type it in.”

– Discussion Participant
20

Scanning Rates and Adherence Strategies
- 21 -

Scanning Rates High Overall During Pilot, Though Key Variations Detected

Users scanned most (94%) of the 2D barcoded vaccines administered during the pilot (n=67,951)*

• 98% (n=71,979) of vaccines administered during the pilot had a 2D barcode (thus, could be scanned)**

• Scanning rates rose during the first 10 weeks, from an average of 89% at the beginning of the pilot to 95% or 

above, where scanning rates remained until the end of the pilot

Significant variations in scanning rates identified from the start and through pilot end

• Characteristics of sites and practitioners linked to scanning rates (e.g., volume of vaccines given, specialty)

• Though characteristics may not be changeable, adjustments to aid scanning are possible and are described

*Scanning rates calculated by total 2D barcoded vaccines scanned over the total number of 2D barcoded vaccines

**Vaccines administered that were not known to have a 2D barcode were classified as non-2D (including the few vaccines on the market without a 2D barcode and any records where 

confirmation of 2D barcoding could not be made)
- 22 -

Variability Found in Pilot Scanning Rates

Analyses of pilot scanning rates found variability by site, specialty, vaccine volume, and strategy groups

Site

39% - 99%

Though the overall scanning 

rate was 94% across all sites 

during the pilot, individual sites 

varied from 39% to 99% of 

vaccines scanned

Specialty

71% - 98%

Pediatric sites (97%) and a 

Shot Clinic (99%) had 

highest scanning rates; 

Internal Medicine sites had 

lowest scanning rates (71%), 

with Family Medicine sites in 

the middle (87%)

Volume

74% - 97%

Average scanning rates differed 

by weekly vaccine volume, from 

74% for low-volume sites (<25 

vaccines per week), to 90% for 

medium-volume sites, to 97% for 

high-volume sites (>100 vaccines 

per week)

Adherence Strategy Group

92% - 96%

Four groups compared; all

groups with a strategy 

beyond training had the 

highest scanning rates

compared with the trainingonly group, on average and 

at the end of the pilot
- 23 -

Average Scanning Rates Ranged from 39% to 99% Across All Pilot Sites

Over half the pilot sites scanned more than 90% of their vaccines, with several scanning nearly all vaccines. Four sites 

scanned 60% or fewer of their 2D barcoded vaccines during the pilot. Sites color-coded by high, medium, low rates.

*Scanning rates calculated by total 2D barcoded vaccines scanned over the total number of 2D barcoded vaccines
- 24 -

Scanning Rates Differed Greatly by Specialty

Statistically significant difference in overall scanning rates by specialty*

• Pediatric and Shot Clinic sites had consistently highest scanning rates (97% – 98% average) during pilot

• Internal Medicine sites showed greater variability, but always had the lowest scanning rates (average 

rate of 72%) across the pilot

• Family Practice sites (average scanning rate of 87%) fell between Internal Medicine and Pediatric 

scanning rates and showed a steady increase in scanning during the pilot period

*Every specialty shows a statistically significant difference in overall scanning rates compared with every other specialty (P < .0001)

**Scanning rates calculated by total 2D barcoded vaccines scanned over the total number of 2D barcoded vaccines
- 25 -

Scanning Rates Increased as Weekly Volume Increased

Statistically significant difference in scanning rates by weekly volume,* from 74% for lowvolume sites (less than 25 vaccines weekly average), to 97% for high-volume sites (more than 

100 vaccines weekly average)

• Most growth seen in the medium-volume sites from start to end of pilot 

• Low-volume sites were frequently Internal Medicine sites

* Low-, medium-, and high-volume sites all showed statistically significant differences from each other in their average scanning rates (P < 0.0001)

**Scanning rates calculated by total 2D barcoded vaccines scanned over the total number of 2D barcoded vaccines
- 26 -

Adherence Strategies Significantly Improved Scanning Rates 

Adherence strategy groups aimed to maximize scanning use, with groups differing by levels of 

resources to implement and timing during the pilot

Significant differences found in average scanning rates across these groups,* with: 

• Training-only group having the lowest average scanning rate and 

• All other groups (with some additional strategy implemented) having significantly higher 

average scanning rates

No significant difference between two highest rate groups (Commitment Card/Combination)

*Statistically significant at the p<.0001 level
- 27 -

Adherence Strategies Most Effective at Family & Internal Medicine Sites 

*Differences statistically significant at the p<.001 level

Adherence strategies performed similarly for Pediatric and Shot Clinic sites with 

significant variation seen for Family Practice and Internal Medicine sites.*

Training-only groups had the lowest scanning rates across all specialties in pilot.
- 28 -

Strategy Group Scanning Patterns Differed Across the Pilot

• By end of the pilot, all groups with adherence strategy implemented beyond training had the highest scanning 

rates (97%+) compared with the training-only group (89%).

• Increases seen at meaningful times for groups with additional strategies: Commitment Card rose early/remained 

high; Scan Report group rose as reports released (grey bars show report release dates); Combo group started 

high, then declined until reports started.

• All groups showed a quick uptake of scanning during the initial weeks of scanning (week “-2” was first week post 

scanner installation, with three weeks of scanning — until black bar at week 1 — set aside as adjustment 

period).*

*Dips at “week 0” for several groups may be due to Christmas and New Year holiday; week 1 started January 2nd

**Scanning rates calculated by total 2D barcoded vaccines scanned over the total number of 2D barcoded vaccines
- 29 -

Success of Scanning Reports Seen Through Scanning Rates and Feedback

Significant increase in scanning rates observed after release of initial scanning reports (for sites receiving 

reports, blue line).* Increases continued as additional reports released through end of pilot. Minimal changes in 

rates seen after release of reports for sites not receiving reports (green line). Grey bars show report releases. 

Staff reaction to reports described increased vigilance, improved awareness, and competition among colleagues. 

“It [the reports] definitely 

made me more vigilant.”

- Discussion Participant

“I need to step up my game.”

- Discussion Participant

“Humans are competitive. In this kind of thing 

it’s like, [name], you didn’t scan? You knocked 

down our score 6% because you missed one.” 

- Discussion Participant

*Statistically significant increase in scanning rates after reports released for sites receiving reports compared with those not receiving reports; significant at the p<.001 level

**For sites receiving scanning reports, weekly vaccine volume varied from 838 to 1,615. For sites not receiving scanning reports, volume varied from 1,239 to 2,190.
- 30 -

Leadership Involvement Mid-Pilot Also Improved Scanning Rates

A strategy not planned by the pilot team involved a visit by health system leadership to a site with low scanning 

rates mid-pilot. Statistically significant increase in scanning rate found after this leader visit.

Comparison below of scanned and not scanned vaccines (by daily volume) across the pilot and an event period 

two weeks before and after this visit (March 22 visit shown in figure by red bar, event window by black bars).

Pilot Period: January 1, 2017 – June 30, 2017 Scanning Rate: Pre-visit: 34% and Post-visit: 97%

Event Window: March 10, 2017 – April 10, 2017

Comparison of two weeks before (March 10-21) and two 

weeks after leader visit (March 23-April 10) found 

significant increase in scanning rate at this site after 

leader visit (p<.0001)
- 31 -

Digging Deeper: Factors That Increase or Decrease the Likelihood of Scanning

Mixed-effects logistic regression used to better understand individual factors that affected whether or not scanning 

occurred (accurate 96% of the time). Below factors individually either positively or negatively affected scanning rates.* 

Factors that increase the likelihood of a vaccine being scanned:

Commitment Cards

Staff who signed a commitment card were more likely to scan 

in first 8 weeks of pilot: 46% more likely at Family and Internal 

Medicine sites and 78% at Pediatrics and Shot Clinics.

Scan Reports

At sites receiving scan reports, staff members listed as having 

the lowest scanning rate at their site showed the largest 

improvements in their scanning rate after report was posted.

Staff Vaccine Volume

Scan rates roughly doubled for every ten-fold increase in the 

volume of vaccines an individual personally scanned (i.e. a staff 

member who administered 500 vaccines during the pilot period 

were about twice as likely to scan as someone who 

administered 50).

Vaccine Manufacturer

There was variation in scan rates based on manufacturer. 

Vaccines by the manufacturer with the highest scan rate were 

nearly twice as likely to be scanned as the lowest rate.

Leadership Visits

A personal visit by leaders to low-performing sites associated 

with an immediate and large increase in site-level scan rates.

Factors that decrease the likelihood of a vaccine being scanned:

Flu Shots 

A flu shot was less likely to be scanned than all other vaccines: 

50% less likely at Family and Internal Medicine sites and 32% at 

Pediatrics and Shot Clinics.

Staff Administering Vaccines at a Secondary Location

Staff administering a vaccine at a secondary location (also 

participating in the pilot) was 65% less likely to scan than staff 

was at their primary location.

Low-Volume Sites

Sites classified as low-volume (i.e., average of <25 

administrations/week) were 59% less likely to scan than other 

sites.

Vaccines Administered Early in the Pilot Period

The first months of the pilot had much lower scan rates overall 

than the last months. At Family and Internal Medicine sites a 

vaccine administered in the first month of the pilot was 62% less 

likely to be scanned than one administered in the final 3 months. 

The difference at Pediatrics and Shot Clinics was 74%.

* All listed factors were statistically significant at the p<.0001 level
- 32 -

Scanning Patterns Can Identify When Consistency is Found (or Not)

Figures below show four scanning patterns by pilot sites, which differ by how they started, variability in scanning 

rates, and when consistent scanning seen (from start, mid-way, never). 

Even within the first few weeks, patterns of consistency were seen (or not). 

This enables targeted support for sites in need and lessons to be learned from sites easily integrating scanning.

Consistency = habit formation
- 33 -

13 Sites (of 27 in pilot) had <90% Scanning Rate

•

•

Staff members with the most unscanned vaccine administrations at these 

sites usually had very low (<50%) personal scanning rates.

Unscanned vaccinations in this group often concentrated in one or two 

staff members.

CASE EXAMPLE (from a site with 59% scanning rate):

One staff member had a 40% personal scanning rate, 

accounting for 53% of this site’s missed scans. 

Two staff members at this site accounted for over 80% of 

the site’s total missed scans. 

Takeaway The difference between high- and low-scanning centers is often just a few struggling staff members

A Focus on the Lowest-Performing Staff Members Can Pinpoint Struggles

Low scanning rates at the worst-performing centers were frequently driven by just one or two people. 

Use of scanning rate data can identify sites and practitioners with low scanning rates.

Identification of individuals struggling to scan consistently and resolution of challenges being 

experienced can greatly improve scanning participation and benefits. 
- 34 -

Pilot Participants Suggested Additional Strategies to Further Improve Scanning

Discussions with staff and leaders at pilot sites identified ways they had improved their own scanning 

rates or suggestions to help others scan more consistently

Post Reminders to Scan

• A few sites developed signs to remind them to scan

• One site posted one-pager given at training to wall near fridge

Resolve Challenges Being Experienced

• Develop a cheat sheet that includes: 

o

o

o

o

How to hold the scanner/vial

Tips to get tricky labels to scan

Whom to call if there are problems

• Develop a protocol for physicians about their role aiding efficiency

For example, ordering vaccines while still in the patient room enables 

vaccines to be in the system, scanned, and verified promptly

Formalize Protocol of Scanning within Workflow 

• Make scanning mandatory and communicate this from the start 

• Add a verbal check into the verification process to ensure vaccines are 

scanned prior to vaccine administration

• Have specific people (one or two) do all tray verifications to add 

consistency and accountability 

Ensure Scanning Takes Place and as Intended

• Observe staff to ensure workflow is implemented as intended and not 

using a workaround

• Identify other sources of data available to assess scanning

“One of the biggest frustrations 

for supervisors is looking at 

adherence to standards, 

workflows, and policies, a lot of it 

is based on observation... When 

you give an employee a review 

that they are not pleased with, it 

would be extremely beneficial to 

have data to support that.” 

- Discussion Participant

“You can’t train someone to a 

standard process and then not 

audit them and not follow up to 

make sure. Just because 

someone has been trained 

doesn’t mean that it’s not still 

going to fall to the wayside.” 

- Discussion Participant
- 35 -

Knowledge About Differing Scanning Rates Can Inform Implementation

Participating pilot sites scanned at fairly high rates, on average, though great variation found. 

Knowledge of these variations, which may carry over to other organizations, can be used for:

Strategic Selection When Weighing Resources

An organization might not have resources to implement scanning across all of its sites and may strategically 

select sites with greatest potential to realize benefits within resources available

 Selection of higher-volume or specific specialty sites may provide the greatest use and benefit, given higher 

scanning rates seen in these sites 

 Alternately, an organization may decide to implement more broadly than anticipated if there is an 

opportunity to realize greater accuracy increases within certain sites and greater time savings within others 

Identification of Persons or Sites Needing Additional Support

Tracking of scanning rates provides the opportunity to identify ongoing challenges with implementation and 

locations where additional support may be needed

 Sites with a lower volume of vaccines given (e.g., Internal Medicine) may require additional support to fully 

implement scanning compared with sites with higher volumes 

 Sites or practitioners without consistent scanning habits can be readily identified and offered support

Identification of Ways to Maximize Scanning

Trainings developed, technical assistance provided, and decisions around the need for additional strategies to 

maximize scanning can be tailored with these findings in mind (and later modified as needed)

• Assessment of scanning rates and any variations experienced should take place and implementation 

further tweaked on an ongoing basis, as relevant 

• Strategies added from the start and at mid-pilot effectively improved scanning in the pilot
36

Scanner Location
- 37 -

Location of Scanners at Pilot Sites Varied

Pilot sites determined the location for their scanners and opted to set up scanners in locations described below

• Scanner set-up shown as a single location type, multiple location types together, or a primary location with backup

• Refrigerator/Draw/Prep most commonly selected, either alone (n=7) or in combination with other locations (n=10)

*Number of sites based on observation during pilot week 7. Three known shifts from installation date (Dec.) to observation date (Feb.) involved relocation from individual desks or patient 

rooms to refrigerator/draw/prep area (sometimes with a backup). After initial shuffling, no sites scanned in patient rooms as a primary location.

**No pilot sites had scanners only in patient rooms, therefore, no further analyses provided
- 38 -

Scanners Available in More Than One Location Had Highest Scanning Rates

In aggregate, scanners at more than one location 

(used equally often or a primary + backup option) had 

higher scanning rates than single location set-up type

Scanning rates (starting in week 7*) for all pilot sites 

show variation among all scanner set-up types, 

indicating no one set-up type is solely ideal

*Week 7 is when on-site observations made for scanner location and set-up type; no known changes took place after this point

** Statistically significant difference (at the p<.05 level) in scanning rates between the three location groups above
- 39 -

Pairing of Refrigerator/Draw/Prep Location Had Highest Scanning Rates 

Aggregate scanning rates for five scanner locations 

selected most in the pilot ranged from 92%-97%

• Refrigerator/draw/prep area as only scanner 

location had lowest scanning rates 

• Refrigerator/draw/prep area paired with another 

location (used equally or as primary, with backup 

also) had highest scanning rates

Scanning rates varied by scanner location across pilot

Comparison included scanner locations used by more 

than one pilot site,** starting in week 7 (when 

observed and location had stabilized)

*Statistically significant difference in scanning rates across locations above (at the p<.05 level), with the exception of no statistical difference between two groups both at 97%

**In order to report findings by scanner location and not scanning rates for individual pilot sites, two scanner locations previously identified are removed from comparison in figures above 

(because only one site had each of two specific scanner location configurations)
- 40 -

Success Strategies for Selection of Scanner Location and Revised Workflow

Pilot participants described reasons for their success and identified ways others could select scanner 

location and revise workflow processes with greatest success

 Determine location of scanner and how scanning fits into workflow early (prior to 

installation and start of scanning, if possible); adjust location and workflow process as 

needed rather than struggling with a set-up or process that is not working or not being used

 Ensure staff are clear on expectations – whether scanning is mandatory and when in the 

vaccine administration process scanning is to take place

 Engage both leaders and staff in scanner location and workflow change discussions

 Make scanning second nature, so that it integrates into process effortlessly

 Scanners in the med room/refrigerator/draw areas identified as best location for many 

because they already go there to pull or draw vaccines; this location did not work for all pilot 

staff or sites

 Backup scanners provide another option for scanning during busy times, problems with 

primary scanner, or for sites with an expansive layout

 Don’t roll out new workflow and entry process during busy time, such as flu season; it’s hard 

to adjust to a new process and work through challenges when too busy
41

User Satisfaction
- 42 -

Pilot Participants Described Satisfaction with 2D Barcode Scanning

Most users reported being satisfied with their experience scanning 2D barcodes, preferred scanning 

over other entry options, and found it worthwhile to make the change in their process. 

These bad boys are 

a game-changer

- Pilot Participant

94%

Prefer scanning 

over other 

options

94% (n=152) agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement, “Overall, I prefer recording data about 

vaccines administered to patients using 2D barcode 

scanning over any approaches our care center has 

used in the past.” 

94%

Satisfied with 

Scanning

94% (n=152) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement 

“Overall, I am satisfied with the use of 2D barcode 

scanning to record vaccine data at this care center.”

96%

Scanning is 

worth

the change

Of 138 user survey respondents, 96% (n=132) agreed or 

strongly agreed with the statement, “Scanning at the 

point of administration is worth the change in process.”

97% of survey 

respondents reported 

“Yes!” or “Leaning toward 

yes” when asked if they 

would like their site to 

continue scanning after the 

pilot ends (n=159 of 164) 
- 43 -

Staff Safety and Other Benefits Experienced

Pilot survey respondents were asked to identify any benefits of 2D barcode scanning they had 

experienced. Most respondents selected multiple options. Select benefits are highlighted below.

While other benefits were identified, including time savings and accuracy, only 4 respondents (3%) selected “none.”
- 44 -

Participants Identified Additional Benefits Experienced

Survey participants described additional benefits experienced through write-in responses. A number 

of responses reiterated time and accuracy benefits, while others described providing an extra safety 

check or reducing risk for hand- and joint-related problems. A few examples are highlighted below.

“Accuracy of information 

entered since reading tiny lot 

numbers is difficult. Saves time.”

- Survey Respondent

“It is an extra 

verification step.”

- Survey Respondent

“...[Scanning] decreased risk for 

hand- and joint-related problems 

related to data entry. Provides an 

additional safety check before 

vaccine administration.”

- Survey Respondent

“It saves time, ensures accurate 

and consistent data entry, and 

provides an extra safety step 

prior to administration.”

- Survey Respondent
45

Challenges Experienced
- 46 -

Key Challenges Found in the Pilot Across Multiple Data Sources

Pilot participants identified challenges experienced through multiple types of data collected across the pilot. 

Several themes appeared across multiple data sources. 

Beyond describing breakdowns in the pilot implementation process, these lessons can aid in improving 

efforts in the future. Decisions during the planning stage and awareness during implementation may reduce 

challenges experienced by others. 
- 47 -

Primary Challenges to Barcode Scanning Identified by Survey Participants

Survey respondents (n=138) agreed/strongly 

agreed they had experienced specific 

challenges(figure right) with barcode scanning. 

Inconsistency of scanners (e.g., needing to scan 

more than once) most frequently identified 

(n=28), followed by needing more scanners 

(n=12), preferring different scanner location 

(n=10), or taking too much space (n=9).

*Survey question: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding potential challenges you may have experienced when using 2D 

barcode scanning to record data about vaccines administered to patients. Agree/Strongly Agree responses considered as challenge.

The 28 respondents indicating scanners did not work consistently were 

then asked how often they scanned more than once to record the vaccine.

The 10 respondents indicating an inconvenient 

scanner location were asked preferred location.
- 48 -

Participant Patterns of Scanning Inconsistencies and Strategies to Resolve

Survey respondents experiencing inconsistent scanning challenges (n=28) described any patterns they 

noticed and solutions to resolve these issues.

Specific Vaccines/Vaccine Labels

• A few specific vaccines were 

identified by type as particularly 

problematic (DTaP, hepatitis) 

• Barcodes on certain vaccines 

partially cut off at the edge of 

the label

• Differences seen when labels 

are light or dark 

Could Not Identify Any Pattern

• Several respondents indicated 

“No patterns” or “None”

• Another noted “Sometimes 

there is a glitch.”

• “Very inconsistent if barcodes 

will enter data. More times than 

not it would tell me ‘barcode 

not recognized’ and I would 

have to input data manually.”

Strategies Used to Resolve

Holding Vial or Scanner Specific Way

• Holding scanner a certain way 

noted as making a difference 

• Holding scanner for an extended 

period until barcode reads

Solution, Even If Reason Unknown

• Restarting the EMR, then 

scanning would work

• Closing patient chart and 

reopening sometimes fixed issue

• Sometimes need to click a 

specific button before the scan 

will work

“No particular pattern, a few vials 

were not being captured by the 

scanner so I had to manually 

enter vaccine data.” 

– Survey Respondent

“It isn't always the same 

vaccine. Not sure what the 

issue is.” – Survey 

Respondent

“How the vial is held under the 

scanner makes a difference if it is 

picked up by the scanning process.” 

– Survey Respondent
- 49 -

Workarounds and Adjustments Can Limit Scanning Benefits or Participation

Pilot participants described deviations from the trained scanning protocol that could limit the safety 

benefits of scanning. Additionally, an adjustment made during the pilot negatively impacted 

scanning participation at one site.

Entry of Vaccine Data in One Step – Prior to or After Administration

• Two versions of this workaround identified: 1) entering data not 

yet confirmed (such as site of injection) prior to administration or 

2) waiting until after administration to scan, when all data 

available for entry; either version provides potential for error and 

does not follow pilot protocol

• Both versions described by multiple pilot participants across 

several pilot sites from the pilot start and through the end

Switching Labels 

When a label would not scan (if faded, cut off, or damaged), 

taking a different vaccine (of the same type, from the same lot) 

was identified as a way to scan the vaccine when manual entry 

would have been needed otherwise 

Adjustment of Scanner Location Affects Participation

One pilot site saw a sharp decline in scanner use when the 

scanner location moved; without resolution of this issue, scanner 

use stayed low through end of the pilot

Survey 

Confirmation

17% of 138 survey respondents 

indicated scanning vaccines after

administration (survey at end of 

the pilot period)

“I came across one that was scratched or 

something, someone said, ‘Why didn’t you 

take a different one from the same lot and 

scan it?’” – Discussion Participant

“When the scanner was in the room, it was 

useful and great. When it was moved to a desk 

outside the lab requiring additional log-on, it 

was not used at all. If the scanner could be at 

each MA desk or each exam room, depending on 

MA preference, it would eliminate a lot of 

errors.” – Survey Participant 
50

Where to Go from Here?

1. What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

2. Our Pilot in Brief

3. Key Pilot Findings

4. Where to Go from Here?

5. Learn More About Our Work
- 51 -

Improve Scanning and Implementation Further – Pilot and Beyond

Survey respondents (n=164) identified necessary changes for 2D barcode scanning to be used more 

regularly at their site. Multiple options could be selected. Most frequently “no changes” selected (n=102), 

perhaps suggesting that high buy-in was achieved or the implementation was appropriate. 

Beyond the pilot, such feedback provides guidance on ways to further improve 2D barcode scanning. 

Parties best able to address identified changes are identified.

Role for Immunization Community

Various immunization community members are 

best positioned to address changes identified by 

pilot participants to increase use of scanning

• Vaccine Manufacturers: The most selected 

actual change needed was having 2D 

barcodes on all vaccines (n=65) 

• EMR Vendors: Expanded EMR functionality 

(n=6) that would enable more information 

to be populated in the EMR with a scan 

would require engagement of EMR vendors

• Health Care System: Changes to scanner 

locations (n=11), increasing staff buy-in 

(n=5), and better alignment with the 

workflow (n=2) could be addressed by 

organizations implementing scanning
- 52 -

Engage Immunization Community to Support Scanning Efforts

Various ways the immunization community can support improvement and expansion of scanning efforts

Vaccine Manufacturers/Pharmaceutical

• Include 2D barcodes on all vaccines

• Ensure print quality/contrast of labels to be easily 

picked up by scanners

• Ensure 2D barcodes on labels print correctly (do not 

get cut off)

• Consider adding 2D barcodes to other medications

EMR Vendors

• Increase/ensure functionality of EMR to support scanning

• Ensure indicator (scan flag) available for health care system 

to track whether scanning took place or not

• Streamline scanner configuration to work easily with EMR 

(currently coordination of EMR/scanner/health system)

• Add pop-up alerts if vaccine scanned does not match order 

or is expired (or others identified by users) 

Scanner Vendors

• Ensure scanner functionality with barcodes and EMR

• Streamline scanner configuration to work easily with 

EMR (currently coordination of EMR/scanner/health 

system)

• Ensure scanner has right sensitivity/ability to support 

scanning barcodes on curved vials and prefilled 

syringes or labels with limited contrast

Health Systems/Practitioners

• Communicate with vendors any needs of health system/ 

practitioners to support scanning and maximize benefits 

(whether expanded EMR functionality, barcodes on 

additional products, improvements to labels, etc.)

• Expansion of scanning through adoption by new health 

systems and scaling for those scanning on limited basis

• Ensure right scanner locations, workflow process, and staff 

buy-in to support successful implementation
53

Learn More About Our Work

1. What is Vaccine 2D Barcode Scanning?

2. Our Pilot in Brief

3. Key Pilot Findings

4. Where to Go from Here?

5. Learn More About Our Work
- 54 -

Learn More About Our Work

Where can I find additional information?

• Visit the CDC 2D barcode site for 2D vaccine resources : 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/2d-vaccine-barcodes/about.html

• Search Key Words: “CDC 2D Barcode”

What’s on the CDC 2D barcode site?

• 2D barcoding pilot reports and other pilot materials

–

–

–

Pilot Findings Report (this document)

How-to Implementation Guide for organizational decision-making

Summary reports from previous pilots

• Current list of 2D barcoded vaccines

• 2D Scanning Functional Requirements

• AAP Guidance

• GS1 Guidance

• Training videos