Use of a Pandemic Preparedness Drill to Increase Rates of Influenza Vaccination Among Healthcare Workers

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Kuntz ◽  
Stephanie Holley ◽  
Charles M. Helms ◽  
Joseph E. Cavanaugh ◽  
Jeff Vande Berg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Pandemic Influenza ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Administrative Support ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Vaccination Rates

Objective.To determine the effect of a pandemic influenza preparedness drill on the rate of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs).Design.Before-after intervention trial.Setting.The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), a large, academic medical center, during 2005.Subjects.Staff members at UIHC.Methods.UIHC conducted a pandemic influenza preparedness drill that included a goal of vaccinating a large number of HCWs in 6 days without disrupting patient care. Peer vaccination and mobile vaccination teams were used to vaccinate HCWs, educational tools were distributed to encourage HCWs to be vaccinated, and resources were allocated on the basis of daily vaccination reports. Logit models were used to compare vaccination rates achieved during the 2005 vaccination drill with the vaccination rates achieved during the 2003 vaccination campaign.Results.UIHC vaccinated 54% of HCWs (2,934 of 5,467) who provided direct patient care in 6 days. In 2 additional weeks, this rate increased to 66% (3,625 of 5,467). Overall, 66% of resident physicians (311 of 470) and 63% of nursing staff (1,429 of 2,255) were vaccinated. Vaccination rates in 2005 were significantly higher than the hospitalwide rate of 41% (5,741 of 14, 086) in 2003.Conclusions.UIHC dramatically increased the influenza vaccination rate among HCWs by conducting a pandemic influenza preparedness drill. Additionally, the drill allowed us to conduct a bioemergency drill in a realistic scenario, use innovative methods for vaccine delivery, and secure administrative support for future influenza vaccination campaigns. Our study demonstrates how a drill can be used to improve vaccination rates significantly.

Increased Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers at a Pediatric Cancer Hospital: Results of a Comprehensive Influenza Vaccination Campaign

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. McCullers ◽  
Kathleen M. Speck ◽  
Bonnie F. Williams ◽  
Hua Liang ◽  
Joseph Mirro
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Nursing Staff ◽  
Pediatric Cancer ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Influenza Season ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Vaccination Acceptance

A comprehensive influenza vaccination campaign improved vaccination rates among healthcare workers with direct patient care responsibilities from 45% during the 2003-2004 influenza season to 80% during the 2004-2005 season. A strategy of weekly feedback to unvaccinated employees was the most important factor in enhancing the rate of vaccination acceptance and was particularly effective among the nursing staff.

Development of a Flexible, Computerized Database to Prioritize, Record, and Report Influenza Vaccination Rates for Healthcare Personnel

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Melia ◽  
Sarah O'Neill ◽  
Sherry Calderon ◽  
Sandra Hewitt ◽  
Kelly Orlando ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Tertiary Care Medical Center ◽  
The Status

Objective.To describe the method used to develop a flexible, computerized database for recording and reporting rates of influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel who were classified by their individual levels (hereafter, “tiers”) of direct patient contact.Design.Three-year descriptive summary.Setting.Large, academic, tertiary care medical center in the United States.Participants.All of the medical center's healthcare personnel.Methods.The need to develop a computer-based system to record direct patient care tiers and vaccination data for healthcare personnel was identified. A plan that was to be implemented in stages over several seasons was developed.Results.Direct patient care tiers were defined by consensus opinion on the basis of the extent, frequency, and intensity of direct contact with patients. The definitions of these tiers evolved over 3 seasons. Direct patient care classifications were assigned and recorded in a computerized database, and data regarding the receipt of vaccination were tracked by using the same database. Data were extracted to generate reports of individual, departmental, and institutional vaccination rates, both overall and according to direct patient care tiers.Conclusions.Development of a computerized database to record direct patient care tiers for individual healthcare workers is a daunting but manageable task. Widespread use of these direct patient care definitions will facilitate uniform comparisons of vaccination rates between institutions. This computerized database can easily be used by infection control personnel to accomplish several other key tasks, including vaccination triage in the context of shortage or delay, prioritization of personnel to receive interventions in times of crisis, and monitoring the status of other employee health or occupational health measures.

scholarly journals Promotion of the influenza vaccination to hospital staff during pre-employment health check: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Currat ◽  
Catherine Lazor-Blanchet ◽  
Giorgio Zanetti
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Newly Hired

Abstract Background Vaccination is the most effective prevention of seasonal influenza. Despite its recommendation and active promotion, vaccination coverage remains low among healthcare staff. The goal of the study was to test if a pre-employment health check is a good opportunity to promote future vaccination against influenza among healthcare workers newly hired by a university hospital. Methods All new hospital employees active at the bedside who underwent a pre-employment health check between the end of 2016’s influenza epidemic and the start of the next influenza vaccination campaign were randomly allocated to a control group or an intervention group. The intervention consisted of a semi-structured dialog and the release of an information leaflet about influenza and influenza vaccination during the check-up, and the shipment of a postcard reminder 2 weeks before the next vaccination campaign. Vaccination rates during the campaign were compared among the two groups. Results Three hundred fifty-seven employees were included. Vaccination rates were similar in both groups: 79/172 (46%) in the control and 92/185 (50%) in the intervention group. A significantly higher rate of vaccination was noted among physicians (70/117, 60%) than among other employees (101/240, 42%, p = 0.001). In a pre-defined exploratory analysis among physicians, the vaccination rate was higher in the intervention group (36/51, 71%) than in the control group (34/65, 52%, p = 0.046). Conclusions Promotion of the influenza vaccine during pre-employment health check did not improve the vaccination rate of newly hired hospital healthcare workers overall during the next influenza vaccination campaign. Results suggest a favourable impact on the vaccination rate of physicians. Thus, there may be an interest in using communication strategies tailored to the different categories of healthcare workers to promote the influenza vaccine during pre-employment health check. Trial registration ClinicalTrials, NCT02758145. Registered 26 April 2016.

Feasibility of medication coordination with lay navigators in outpatient oncology clinics.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 81-81
Author(s):  
Katherine P. Morgan ◽  
Jean B. Sellers ◽  
Benyam Muluneh ◽  
Megan Carlson ◽  
William Allen Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Clinic Staff ◽  
Medication Access ◽  
Training And Supervision ◽  
Academic Medical

81 Background: Significant obstacles exist with approval and payment of oncology medications for both the patient and pharmacy team. Our medication assistance program is supported by the clinical pharmacist (CP) and clinic staff. Many tasks are time consuming, interrupt patient care and may create medication access delays. Patients also need assistance with health insurance literacy and have minimal understanding of medication assistance resources. Lay navigators (LN) are volunteers who assist cancer patients overcome barriers to care. They are trained to work in tandem with clinical staff while linking patients to financial resources. A pilot was developed to determine the feasibility and value of integrating LN support within the pharmacy team. Methods: Four LN were integrated into oncology clinics. Tasks were assigned to the LN under the supervision of the CP. The LN documented tasks executed, entities and patients they communicated with and time spent on each encounter. Results: From April to June 2018, 4 LN were available 2 to 4 hours per week. The LN completed 46 interventions for 20 patients (Table 1). Average time spent on each intervention was 19 minutes. Over the 9-week pilot period the LN saved clinic staff a total of 10.87 hours. LN survey feedback was positive and 75% of the LN report confidence when communicating with patients about medication access. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that LN can be utilized as a pharmacy advocate for medication coordination in oncology clinics at our academic medical center. LN satisfaction was high and time savings allowed CP to focus on direct patient care. The model is cost effective and requires few resources other than financial toxicity training and supervision. Future steps will include determining financial impact, patient satisfaction and expansion into additional clinics.[Table: see text]

Healthcare Workers' Knowledge and Attitudes About Pertussis and Pertussis Vaccination

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1284-1289 ◽  
Author(s):  
William P. Goins ◽  
William Schaffner ◽  
Kathryn M. Edwards ◽  
Thomas R. Talbot
Keyword(s):  
Pertussis Vaccine ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Personal Recommendation ◽  
To Receive

Objective.To determine knowledge and attitudes about pertussis and pertussis vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs).Design.Self-administered, Web-based survey.Setting.Tertiary-care academic medical center.Participants.Medical center employees who participated in direct patient care were recruited to complete the survey through institutional e-mail.Results.Of 14,893 potentially eligible employees, 1,819 (12%) completed the survey. Most respondents (87%) did not plan to receive the pertussis vaccine. Intent to receive vaccination (which included recent history of vaccination) was associated with the following 4 factors: receipt of a physician recommendation for vaccination (odds ratio [OR], 9.01), awareness of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for pertussis vaccination for HCWs (OR, 6.89), receipt of encouragement to be vaccinated from a coworker (OR, 4.72), the belief that HCWs may spread pertussis to patients and family (OR, 1.80). Two factors were negatively associated with intent to receive vaccination: the presence of children in the HCW's home (OR, 0.69) and employment as a nurse (OR, 0.59). Reasons cited by those who did not intend to receive vaccination included lack of a personal recommendation for vaccination (78%), receipt of vaccination as a child (51%), and perception that there was no significant risk for contracting pertussis (38%).Conclusions.Of the HCWs surveyed, only 13% intended to receive the pertussis vaccine. A perceived lack of recommendation for vaccination and inaccurate conceptions about pertussis and pertussis vaccination were cited as reasons HCWs did not intend to be vaccinated. Institutional pertussis vaccination campaigns should focus on the risks of healthcare-associated pertussis and new recommendations for pertussis vaccination.

scholarly journals Comparison of Direct Patient Care Costs and Quality Outcomes of the Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitalist Services at a Large Academic Medical Center

2018 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose A. Perez ◽  
Melina Awar ◽  
Aryan Nezamabadi ◽  
Richard Ogunti ◽  
Mamta Puppala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Quality Outcomes ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Care Costs

scholarly journals 565. Risk of COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers After Launch of Vaccination Campaign at an Academic Medical Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S384-S385
Author(s):  
Bhagyashri D Navalkele ◽  
Jose Lucar ◽  
James B Brock ◽  
Jason Parham
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Complete Recovery ◽  
Healthcare Facility ◽  
Asymptomatic Infection ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus affected healthcare workers (HCWs) adding additional burden on staffing shortages. COVID-19 vaccination (mRNA 1273 and BNT162b2) has been shown to protect against severe disease, death and reduced risk of asymptomatic infection and transmission from fully vaccinated individuals. Here, we present the impact of COVID-19 vaccination (CoVac) on risk of developing COVID-19 based on test results among unvaccinated and vaccinated HCWs. Methods Our academic medical center with 11,785 HCWs on its Jackson campus initiated non-mandatory CoVac among HCWs with BNT162b2 on December 16, 2020. Individuals ≥ 2 weeks after 1st dose of vaccine were defined as partially vaccinated and those ≥2 weeks from 2nd dose of vaccine were defined as fully vaccinated. Per facility policy, all symptomatic HCWs (irrespective of vaccination status) were recommended to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Asymptomatic HCWs were also tested upon household exposure, however, this policy was changed on March 9th 2021 to allow fully vaccinated asymptomatic HCWs to work without need for quarantine or testing. Universal masking policy among HCWs remained effective at our center during study period. Results Between the launch of COVID-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020 and April 30, 2021, 5,855 HCWs received one dose of vaccine, and 5,687 received both doses. A total of 1,329 unique HCWs underwent COVID-19 testing between January 4, 2021 and April 30, 2021. Of those, 217 (16.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 204 were unvaccinated, 7 were partially vaccinated, and 6 were fully vaccinated (figure 1). Of the 6 fully vaccinated employees, 1 was asymptomatic (testing for travel purposes), 4 had mild symptoms, and one elderly employee required hospitalization with oxygen supplementation and had a complete recovery. No facility outbreaks were reported related to asymptomatic, work exposed, fully vaccinated HCWs. Unvaccinated healthcare workers were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to partially and fully vaccinated healthcare workers. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccination protected HCWs by reducing risk for developing COVID-19. Vaccinating healthcare workers is a crucial infection prevention measure to reduce disease burden, avoid staffing shortages and create a safe environment in the healthcare facility to prevent transmission to other staff and at-risk patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Effect of A Hospital Campaign for Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 612-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joon Young Song ◽  
Cheong Won Park ◽  
Hye Won Jeong ◽  
Hee Jin Cheong ◽  
Woo Joo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Intervention Strategy ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Tailored Intervention ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Item Questionnaire

Objective.To identify the factors that inhibit or motivate influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods.In March 2000, we prepared 34-item questionnaire for both vaccine recipients and nonrecipients regarding demographic characteristics, factors motivating and inhibiting vaccination, and knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination. On the basis of the results of our survey, an aggressive hospital vaccination campaign was undertaken. In April 2004, after the 4-year campaign, the same questionnaire was again administered to HCWs.Results.In both 2000 and 2004, the main motives for undergoing influenza vaccination were “hospital campaign” and “recommendation by colleagues”; the percentage of respondents who were motivated by the hospital campaign had remarkably increased from 27% in 2000 to 52% in 2004 (P<.001), whereas the percentage who were motivated by recommendation by colleagues had not changed significantly (21% vs 14%). Qverall, the 4 reasons most frequently cited by HCWs for noncompliance with vaccination were insufficient available time, confidence in their health, doubt about vaccine efficacy, and fear of injection. In 2000, vaccination rates were below 30%, irrespective of occupation. After an aggressive vaccination campaign, the increase in the vaccination rate was highest among the nursing staff, increasing from 21% in 2000 to 92% in 2004, whereas the vaccination rate among the physicians was still below 60%.Conclusion.We conclude that a hospital campaign can markedly improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs. Both a mobile cart system and free vaccine supply contributed to improving the vaccination rates in our study. In addition, a specifically tailored intervention strategy was required.

scholarly journals A Time Off Incentive Was Not Associated with Influenza Vaccination Acceptance among Healthcare Workers

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Saima Cheema ◽  
Christopher Vinnard ◽  
Sarah Foster-Chang ◽  
Darren R. Linkin
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Vaccination Acceptance ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
Mandatory Vaccination ◽  
Relationship Of

Objectives. The national influenza vaccination rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) remains low despite clear benefits to patients, coworkers, and families. We sought to evaluate formally the effect of a one-hour time off incentive on attitudes towards influenza vaccination during the 2011-2012 influenza season. Methods. All HCWs at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center were invited to complete an anonymous web-based survey. We described respondents’ characteristics and attitudes toward influenza vaccination and determined the relationship of specific attitudes with respondents’ acceptance of influenza vaccination, using a 5-point Likert scale. Results. We analyzed survey responses from 154 HCWs employed at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, with a response rate of 8%. Among 121 respondents who reported receiving influenza vaccination, 34 (28%, 95% CI 20–37%) reported agreement with the statement that the time off incentive made a difference in their decision to accept influenza vaccination. Conclusions. Our study provides evidence that modest incentives such as one-hour paid time off will be unlikely to promote influenza vaccination rates within medical facilities. More potent interventions that include mandatory vaccination combined with penalties for noncompliance will likely provide the only means to achieve near-universal influenza vaccination among HCWs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document