Championing Patient Safety through Mandatory Influenza Vaccination for All Healthcare Personnel and Affiliated Physicians

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne V. Karanfil ◽  
Jan Bahner ◽  
Joan Hovatter ◽  
William L. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Influenza Season ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Vaccination Program ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Seasonal Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
For Profit

Objective.To determine whether a mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination program will increase vaccination rates among healthcare personnel (HCP) and affiliated physicians.Setting.MedStar Health is a not-for-profit regional healthcare organization that includes 9 hospitals with approximately 25,000 HCP and approximately 4,000 affiliated physicians. HCP describes any person employed by MedStar Health.Methods.With previous vaccination rates parallel to reported national rates of 54% among HCP, MedStar Health introduced a mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination program promulgated during the 2009–2010 influenza season. HCP and affiliated physicians were given an opportunity to apply for medical or religious exemptions. Noncompliant HCP were terminated. Noncompliant physicians had their privileges administratively suspended for the influenza season.Results.HCP compliance (vaccinated and exempt) was 99.9%. The influenza vaccination rate among HCP was 98.5%. There were 338 approved medical exemptions and 18 approved religious exemptions. Only 0.01% of HCP (9 full-time, 2 part-time, and 17 per diem employees) were terminated. Overall, 93% of the affiliated physicians were vaccinated; 7 religious and 99 medical exemptions were granted. In total, 149 physicians (4%) had their admitting privileges suspended during the influenza season.Conclusion.A mandatory influenza vaccination program achieves high rates of vaccination among HCP and affiliated physicians.

Correlates of Improved Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: A Survey of Hospitals in Louisiana

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 723-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kayla L. Fricke ◽  
Mariella M. Gastañaduy ◽  
Renee Klos ◽  
Rodolfo E. Bégué
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Hospital Type ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Item Questionnaire

Objective.To describe practices for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) with emphasis on correlates of increased vaccination rates.Design.Survey.Participants.Volunteer sample of hospitals in Louisiana.Methods.All hospitals in Louisiana were invited to participate. A 17-item questionnaire inquired about the hospital type, patients served, characteristics of the vaccination campaign, and the resulting vaccination rate.Results.Of 254 hospitals, 153 (60%) participated and were included in the 124 responses that were received. Most programs (64%) required that HCP either receive the vaccine or sign a declination form, and the rest were exclusively voluntary (36%); no program made vaccination a condition of employment. The median vaccination rate was 67%, and the vaccination rate was higher among hospitals that were accredited by the Joint Commission; provided acute care; served children, pregnant women, oncology patients, or intensive care unit patients; required a signed declination form; or imposed consequences for unvaccinated HCP (the most common of which was to require that a mask be worn on patient contact). Hospitals that provided free vaccine, made vaccine widely available, advertised the program extensively, required a declination form, and imposed consequences had the highest vaccination rates (median, 86%; range, 81%–91%).Conclusions.The rate of influenza vaccination of HCP remains low among the hospitals surveyed. Recommended practices may not be enough to reach 90% vaccination rates unless a signed declination requirement and consequences are implemented. Wearing a mask is a strong consequence. Demanding influenza vaccination as a condition of employment was not reported as a practice by the participating hospitals.

scholarly journals Support for Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Requirements among US Healthcare Personnel

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Maurer ◽  
Katharine M. Harris ◽  
Carla L. Black ◽  
Gary L. Euler
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Safety Issue ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Sampling Frame ◽  
Staff Support ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Seasonal Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Serious Disease

Objective.To measure support for seasonal influenza vaccination requirements among US healthcare personnel (HCP) and its associations with attitudes regarding influenza and influenza vaccination and self-reported coverage by existing vaccination requirements.Design.Between lune 1 and June 30, 2010, we surveyed a sample of US HCP (n = 1,664) recruited using an existing probability-based online research panel of participants representing the US general population as a sampling frame.Setting.General community.Participants.Eligible HCP who (1) reported having worked as medical doctors, health technologists, healthcare support staff, or other health practitioners or who (2) reported having worked in hospitals, ambulatory care facilities, long-term care facilities, or other health-related settings.Methods.We analyzed support for seasonal influenza vaccination requirements for HCP using proportion estimation and multivariable probit models.Results.A total of 57.4% (95% confidence interval, 53.3%–61.5%) of US HCP agreed that HCP should be required to be vaccinated for seasonal influenza. Support for mandatory vaccination was statistically significantly higher among HCP who were subject to employer-based influenza vaccination requirements, who considered influenza to be a serious disease, and who agreed that influenza vaccine was safe and effective.Conclusions.A majority of HCP support influenza vaccination requirements. Moreover, providing HCP with information about the safety of influenza vaccination and communicating that immunization of HCP is a patient safety issue may be important for generating staff support for influenza vaccination requirements.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(3):213-221

Seasonal influenza vaccination rates and reasons for non-vaccination in children with gastrointestinal disorders

Vaccine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 182-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Peleg ◽  
Noam Zevit ◽  
Raanan Shamir ◽  
Gabriel Chodick ◽  
Itzhak Levy
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Gastrointestinal Disorders ◽  
Seasonal Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Rates

Use Of A Mobile Cart Influenza Program For Vaccination Of Hospital Employees

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (11) ◽  
pp. 918-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Sartor ◽  
Herve Tissot-Dupont ◽  
Christine Zandotti ◽  
Francoise Martin ◽  
Pierre Roques ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Vaccination Program ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Vaccination Acceptance ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Haenszel Test

AbstractObjective:Rates of annual influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) remained low in our university hospital. This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of a mobile cart influenza vaccination program on HCW vaccination.Methods:From 2000 to 2002, the employee health service continued its annual influenza vaccination program and the mobile cart program was implemented throughout the institution. This program offered influenza vaccination to all employees directly on the units. Each employee completed a questionnaire. Vaccination rates were analyzed using the Mantel–Haenszel test.Results:The program proposed vaccination to 50% to 56% of the employees. Among the nonvaccinated employees, 52% to 53% agreed to be vaccinated. The compliance with vaccination varied from 61% to 77% among physicians and medical students and from 38% to 55% among nurses and other employees. Vaccination of the chief or associate professor of the unit was associated with a higher vaccination rate of the medical staff (P < .01). Altogether, the vaccination program led to an increase in influenza vaccination among employees from 6% in 1998 and 7% in 1999 before the mobile cart program to 32% in 2000, 35% in 2001, and 32% in 2002 (P < .001).Conclusions:The mobile cart program was associated with a significantly increased vaccination acceptance. Our study was able to identify HCW groups for which the mobile cart was effective and highlight the role of the unit head in its success.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Patterns Among Pregnant Women in New Mexico

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-223
Author(s):  
Upasana Chalise ◽  
Jill A. McDonald ◽  
Anup Amatya ◽  
Martha Morales
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
New Mexico ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Vaccine Coverage ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Seasonal Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Border States

Introduction: Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for pregnant women, but half of the pregnant women in the United States remain unvaccinated. Vaccine coverage in U.S.–Mexico border states has not been examined in depth even though risk factors for low vaccine coverage exist in these states, especially in the counties bordering Mexico. Method: Using 2012-2014 New Mexico (NM) Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System data, this study examined the weighted annual seasonal influenza vaccination rates and the relationship of various factors to vaccination among NM residents with a live birth during those years. Results: Among respondents, 53.8% were Hispanic, 15.7% were Native American, and 30.5% were non-Hispanic White. The vaccination rate in NM increased from 49.0% in 2012 to 64.8% in 2014. The adjusted odds of vaccination were higher among women whose health care provider recommended/offered vaccination during the year prior to delivery compared to women whose provider did not (AOR = 11.92, 95% confidence interval [CI: 9.86, 14.42]) and among those living in the U.S.–Mexico nonborder counties compared to those living in the border counties (AOR = 1.23, 95% CI [1.18, 1.25]). Conclusion: Efforts to increase the vaccination rate among pregnant women in border states should concentrate on health care providers and the highest risk women, such as those resident in the border region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document