BackgroundThis study aims to summarise and describe the evolution of published economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada, thereby outlining the current state of this expanding and meaningful research.MethodsUsing Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework we assembled relevant research from both academic and grey literature. Following abstract and full-text review we identified 60 articles to be included in the final analysis.ResultsWe found that since 1988 there has been a steady increase in the number of economic evaluations on vaccines in Canada. Many of these studies focus on the more recently licensed vaccines, such as influenza (16.7%), human papillomavirus (15.0%) and pneumococcal disease (15.0%). Since 2010 economic evaluations of vaccines have shown increased adherence to economic evaluation guidelines (OR = 4.6, CI 1.33, 18.7), suggesting there has been improvement in the consistency and transparency of these studies. However, there remains room for improvement, for instance, we found evidence that studies who stated a conflict of interest are more likely to assert the vaccine of interest was cost-effective (OR = 7.4; CI 1.04, 17.8). Furthermore, most reports use static models that do not consider herd immunity, and only a few evaluate vaccines post-implementation (ex-post) and traveller’s vaccinations.ConclusionResearchers should examine identified research gaps and continue to improve standardization and transparency when reporting to ensure economic evaluations of vaccines best meet the needs of policy-makers, other researchers and the public.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-017-0069-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Effective medical device reprocessing (MDR) is essential in preventing the spread of microorganisms and maintaining patient safety. Alberta Health Services (AHS) is an Alberta-wide, integrated health system, responsible for delivering health services to >4.3 million people living in the province. In 2010, periodic province-wide MDR reviews were initiated by the provincial health system to verify that the cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of reusable critical and semicritical medical devices met established standards. To date, there have been 3 review cycles; in cycle 3, a follow-up process for tracking and reporting corrective actions was initiated. Methods: As in previous MDR review cycles, cycle 3 included the use of a standardized suite of tools to measure compliance with standards set by Accreditation Canada, the Canadian Standards Association, and the Government of Alberta. Each cycle involved a review of MDR areas completed by trained reviewers. Interrater reliability among reviewers was maintained through training and debriefings following reviews to ensure agreement. Following reviews, reports were generated for areas, zones, and AHS. As part of the corrective actions and follow-up process, identified deficiencies were categorized into 5 themes. Corrective actions were tracked and periodic reports were generated showing the progress of deficiency resolution. Resolution rates (number of resolved deficiencies divided by total number of of deficiencies) were calculated for each of the identified themes as well as overall for cycle 3. Results: Overall compliance for cycle 3 was 93%. Cycle 3 reviews revealed that more than half of the deficiencies (58%) were identified previously in cycle 2. The resolution rates ranged from 78% to 95% for identified deficiencies for 4 of the 5 themes: documentation, technique, PPE/attire/hand hygiene, and other. The theme related to physical infrastructure showed a considerably lower resolution rate of 49%. The corrective action follow-up process showed increased overall resolution rate from 59% at the start of the follow-up process to 82% at its completion. When this resolution rate was applied to the initial survey compliance rate for cycle 3, overall compliance increased to 99%. Conclusions: Monitoring quality of MDR practices is essential in maintaining and improving patient safety. The standardized provincial review process identified common themes and a coordinated approach to support the resolution of many identified deficiencies. Most of those deficiencies were resolved; however, those deficiencies related to physical infrastructure of the MDR department continue to be seen across review cycles. This review process with follow up of these deficiencies can help bring attention to organization leadership and Funding: authorities during budget cycles.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None