Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination Research Articles

Exploring and Promoting Prosocial Vaccination: A Cross-Cultural Experiment on Vaccination of Health Care Personnel.

Influenza vaccination for health care personnel (HCP) is recommended particularly because it indirectly protects patients from contracting the disease. Vaccinating can therefore be interpreted as a prosocial act. However, HCP vaccination rates are often far too low to prevent nosocomial infections. Effective interventions are needed to increase HCP's influenza vaccine uptake. Here we devise a novel tool to experimentally test interventions that aim at increasing prosocially motivated vaccine uptake under controlled conditions. We conducted a large-scale and cross-cultural experiment with participants from countries with either a collectivistic (South Korea) or an individualistic (USA) cultural background. Results showed that prosocially motivated vaccination was more likely in South Korea compared to the US, mediated by a greater perception of vaccination as a social act. However, changing the default of vaccination, such that participants had to opt out rather than to opt in, increased vaccine uptake in the US and therefore compensated for the lower level of prosocial vaccination. In sum, the present study provides both a novel method to investigate HCP influenza vaccination behavior and interventions to increase their vaccine uptake.

Evaluation of the First Year of National Reporting on a New Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination Performance Measure by US Hospitals.

One thousand hospitals were surveyed on a new measure of healthcare personnel influenza vaccination for the 2012-2013 influenza season. Facilities found it easier to collect data on employees than nonemployees; larger facilities reported more challenges than smaller facilities. Barriers may decrease over time as facilities become accustomed to the measure.

Influenza vaccination of health care personnel: Experiences with the first year of a national data collection effort

The purpose of this project was to evaluate a standardized measure of health care personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination during the first year of implementation. The measure requires acute care hospitals to gather vaccination status data from employees, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs), and adult students/trainees and volunteers. The evaluation included a hospital sampling frame stratified by 4 United States Census Bureau Regions and hospital bed count. The hospitals were selected within strata using simple random sampling and the probability proportional to size method, without replacement. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Two qualitative data analysts independently coded each interview, and data were synthesized using a thematic analysis. This evaluation took place at hospitals reporting HCP influenza vaccination data as part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program. Participants included the staff at 46 hospitals who were knowledgeable about data collection to fulfill IQR program requirements. Facilitators of data collection included having a small number of HCP, having a data collection system already in place, and providing HCP with advance notice of data collection. Major challenges included the absence of an established tracking process and monitoring HCP not regularly working in the facility, particularly LIPs. More than half of the facilities noted the time- and/or resource-intensive nature of data collection. Most facilities used data collected to meet other reporting requirements beyond the IQR Program. Hospitals implemented a range of data collection methods to comply with reporting requirements. Lessons learned from the first year of measure implementation can be used to enhance data collection practices across HCP groups for future influenza seasons.

What is the Impact of the ‘Flu Mask' Regulation on Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccine Acceptance Rates?

What is the Impact of the ‘Flu Mask' Regulation on Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccine Acceptance Rates?

Changes in Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination Rates Associated with Changes in Facility-Level Policies and Practices

Changes in Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination Rates Associated with Changes in Facility-Level Policies and Practices

Carrots and sticks: achieving high healthcare personnel influenza vaccination rates without a mandate.

Achieving high healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination rates has typically required mandating vaccination, which is often challenging to implement. Our objective was to achieve >90% employee influenza vaccination without a mandate. Prospective quality improvement initiative All employees of a 2-hospital, 1,100-bed, community-based academic healthcare system. The multimodal HCP vaccination campaign consisted of a mandatory declination policy, mask-wearing for non-vaccinated HCP, highly visible "I'm vaccinated" hanging badges, improved vaccination tracking, weekly compliance reports to managers and vice presidents, disciplinary measures for noncompliant HCP, vaccination stations at facility entrances, and inclusion of a target employee vaccination rate (>75%) metric in the annual employee bonus program. The campaign was implemented in the 2011-2012 influenza season and continued throughout the 2012-2013 through 2014-2015 influenza seasons. Employee compliance, vaccination, exemption and declination rates were calculated and compared with those of the seasons prior to the intervention. Compared with vaccination rates of 57%-72% in the 3 years preceding the intervention, employee influenza vaccination increased to 92% in year 1 and 93% in years 2-4 (P<.001). The proportion of employees declaring medical/religious exemptions or declining vaccination decreased during the 4 years of the program (respectively, 1.2% to 0.5%, P<.001; 4.4% to 3.8%, P=.001). An integrated multimodal approach incorporating peer pressure, accountability, and financial incentives was associated with increased employee vaccination rate from ≤72% to ≥92%, which has been sustained for 4 influenza seasons. Such programs may provide a model for behavioral change within healthcare organizations.

Comparison of serum hemagglutinin and neuraminidase inhibition antibodies after 2010-2011 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccination in healthcare personnel.

Background. Most inactivated influenza vaccines contain purified and standardized hemagglutinin (HA) and residual neuraminidase (NA) antigens. Vaccine-associated HA antibody responses (hemagglutination inhibition [HAI]) are well described, but less is known about the immune response to the NA.Methods. Serum of 1349 healthcare personnel (HCP) electing or declining the 2010–2011 trivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine ([IIV3], containing A/California/7/2009 p(H1N1), A/Perth/16/2009 [H3N2], B/Brisbane/60/2008 strains) were tested for NA-inhibiting (NAI) antibody by a modified lectin-based assay using pseudotyped N1 and N2 influenza A viruses with an irrelevant (H5) HA. Neuraminidase-inhibiting and HAI antibody titers were evaluated approximately 30 days after vaccination and end-of-season for those with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed influenza infection.Results. In 916 HCP (68%) receiving IIV3, a 2-fold increase in N1 and N2 NAI antibody occurred in 63.7% and 47.3%, respectively. Smaller responses occurred in HCP age >50 years and those without prior 2009–2010 IIV3 nor monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccinations. Forty-four PCR-confirmed influenza infections were observed, primarily affecting those with lower pre-exposure HAI and NAI antibodies. Higher pre-NAI titers correlated with shorter duration of illness for A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infections.Conclusions. Trivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine is modestly immunogenic for N1 and N2 antigens in HCP. Vaccines eliciting robust NA immune responses may improve efficacy and reduce influenza-associated morbidity.

Influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel

The thought is terrifying—you are admitted to the hospital and you die of a nosocomial infection. What sounds like a horror scenario, happens every day in hospitals all over the world. Nosocomial influenza is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality among patients with underlying diseases (especially immunocompromised patients), the elderly, and neonates. Although vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) is the main measure for preventing nosocomial influenza and is consistently recommended by public-health authorities, vaccine uptake among HCP remains low.1

A systematic review of mandatory influenza vaccination in healthcare personnel.

Influenza is a major cause of patient morbidity. Mandatory influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) is increasingly common yet has uncertain clinical impact. This study systematically examines published evidence of the benefits and harm of influenza vaccine mandates. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citations Index were searched and analyzed in 2013. Studies must have assessed the effect of a requirement of influenza vaccination among HCP for continued employment or clinical practice. Studies were not limited by comparison group, outcome, language, or study design. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed bias risk. Twelve observational studies were included in the study from 778 citations. Following implementation of a vaccine mandate, vaccination rates increased in all eight studies reporting this outcome, exceeding 94%. Three studies documented increased vaccination rates in hospitals with mandates compared to those without (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Two single-institution studies reported limited, inconclusive results on absenteeism among HCP. No studies reported on clinical outcomes among patients. Medical and religious exemptions and terminations or voluntary resignations were rare. Evidence from observational studies suggests that a vaccine mandate increases vaccination rates, but evidence on clinical outcomes is lacking. Although challenging, large healthcare employers planning to implement a mandate should develop a strategy to evaluate HCP and patient outcomes. Further studies documenting the impact of HCP influenza vaccination on clinical outcomes would inform decisions on the use of mandatory vaccine policies in HCP.

Relationship between Hospital Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination Rates and Community Influenza Rates in California

Influenza is a viral respiratory infection that causes over 36,000 deaths in the United States annually. Vaccination is the primary public health intervention to prevent both individual disease and person-to-person transmission. Transmission is stopped when there are a sufficient number of individuals are immune. Vaccination of school age-children has been demonstrated to protect communities from influenza outbreaks. It is not known if hospital personnel vaccination reduces the community’s influenza morbidity or mortality.

"I don't see an added value for myself": a qualitative study exploring the social cognitive variables associated with influenza vaccination of Belgian, Dutch and German healthcare personnel.

BackgroundHealth Authorities recommend influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) to decrease the transmission of influenza to vulnerable patients. Recent studies have almost exclusively used quantitative questionnaires in order to identify determinants of vaccination behaviour. Interviews enable HCP to express freely why they think they are (not) willing to get vaccinated against influenza.MethodsBy means of semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 123 Belgian, Dutch and German HCP, reasons for and against vaccination, experiences with influenza vaccination, intention to get vaccinated and possible barriers, as well as willingness to advice influenza vaccination to patients were investigated. Data were processed with QSR NVivo 8.0 and analysed using a combination of a deductive and a general inductive approach.ResultsAcross countries, self-protection, patient protection, and protection of family members were reported as most important reasons to get vaccinated against influenza. Reasons to not get vaccinated against influenza were fear of side effects caused by the vaccine, a low risk-perception, the disbelief in the effectiveness of influenza vaccination, organizational barriers, misconceptions, and undefined negative emotions.ConclusionsThe social cognitive variables underlying the decision of HCP to get vaccinated against influenza (or not) seem to be similar in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, even though some differences surfaced. A quantitative investigation of those social cognitive variables is needed in order to determine the importance of the social cognitive variables in explaining the intention to get vaccinated and the importance of the similarities and differences between countries that have been found in this study.

The impact of influenza vaccination requirements for hospital personnel in California: Knowledge, attitudes, and vaccine uptake

Seasonal influenza infections are a leading cause of illness, death, and lost productivity. Vaccinating health care personnel (HCP) can reduce transmission of influenza virus to patients and reduce influenza-related absenteeism, enabling the health care system to meet elevated demand for care during influenza outbreaks. We evaluated the impact of California's 2006 influenza vaccination requirement for hospital workers (requiring vaccination or signed declinations) on uptake and vaccination-related attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge among hospital HCP. We used a causal difference-in-differences approach to compare changes over the prior 10 years in the self-reported frequency of influenza vaccination for California hospital HCP and those from other states without similar laws using data from a stratified sample (N = 3,529) of HCP drawn from online survey panels. We also examined cross-sectional differences in awareness of vaccination policies, promotion efforts, and attitudes toward influenza vaccination. All analyses used propensity score weighting to balance the observable characteristics of the 2 samples. We found that compared with their counterparts in other states, California hospital HCP were (1) more likely to report working under a formal written policy for influenza vaccination, (2) no more likely to be vaccinated, and (3) less likely to report working for an employer who provided financial incentives for vaccination or rewarded or recognized employees for being vaccinated. Our results suggest that state-level vaccination requirements such as those enacted by California, may not be sufficient to increase uptake among hospital HCP.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Effect of Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel on Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients: Systematic Review and Grading of Evidence

Influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) is recommended in >40 countries. However, there is controversy surrounding the evidence that HCP vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality among patients. Key factors for developing evidence-based recommendations include quality of evidence, balance of benefits and harms, and values and preferences. We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies published through June 2012 to evaluate the effect of HCP influenza vaccination on mortality, hospitalization, and influenza cases in patients of healthcare facilities. We pooled trial results using meta-analysis and assessed evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 4 cluster randomized trials and 4 observational studies conducted in long-term care or hospital settings. Pooled risk ratios across trials for all-cause mortality and influenza-like illness were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], .59-.85) and 0.58 (95% CI, .46-.73), respectively; pooled estimates for all-cause hospitalization and laboratory-confirmed influenza were not statistically significant. The cohort and case-control studies indicated significant protective associations for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza. No studies reported harms to patients. Using GRADE, the quality of the evidence for the effect of HCP vaccination on mortality and influenza cases in patients was moderate and low, respectively. The evidence quality for the effect of HCP vaccination on patient hospitalization was low. The overall evidence quality was moderate. The quality of evidence is higher for mortality than for other outcomes. HCP influenza vaccination can enhance patient safety.

A quality improvement project to increase influenza vaccination in healthcare personnel at a university health center

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to increase the healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccine uptake at a university student health center. A descriptive design was used. A preintervention survey identified facilitators and barriers to HCP's uptake of influenza vaccine. Based on the results of this survey, four interventions were implemented. The postintervention survey was administered to assess for intervention effectiveness. The most common facilitators for influenza vaccination uptake on the preintervention survey were as follows: (a) protect self/family, (b) free vaccine, (c) recommended by experts, and (d) convenient vaccination process. The most common barrier was concern about vaccine side effects. Postintervention, the vaccination uptake increased from 71% in 2008-2009 to 77% in 2009-2010. Free vaccine and convenient vaccination process were rated as the most effective interventions. Education and the declination form used for the project were rated less favorably. Factors influencing vaccine uptake may be different across practice settings. It is important to identify facilitators and barriers that are unique to health centers to better plan and implement interventions to improve vaccination rates. Furthermore, at a time when resources are limited, it is critical to identify the most effective strategies to maximize outcomes.

Evaluating a Standardized Measure of Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination

Methods of measuring influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) vary substantially, as do the groups of HCP that are included in any given set of measurements. Thus, comparison of vaccination rates across healthcare facilities is difficult. The goal of the study was to determine the feasibility of implementing a standardized measure for reporting HCP influenza vaccination data in various types of healthcare facilities. A total of 318 facilities recruited in four U.S. jurisdictions agreed to participate in the evaluation, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, dialysis clinics, ambulatory surgery centers, and physician practices. HCP in participating facilities were categorized as employees, credentialed non-employees, or other non-employees using standard definitions. Data were gathered using cross-sectional web-based surveys completed at three intervals between October 2010 and May 2011; data were analyzed in February 2012. 234 facilities (74%) completed all three surveys. Most facilities could report on-site employee vaccination; almost one third could not provide complete data on HCP vaccinated outside the facility, contraindications, or declinations, primarily due to missing non-employee data. Inability to determine vaccination status of credentialed and other non-employees was cited as a major barrier to measure implementation by 24% and 27% of respondents, respectively. Using the measure to report employee vaccination status was feasible for most facilities; tracking non-employee HCP was more challenging. Based on evaluation findings, the measure was revised to limit the types of non-employees included. Although the revised measure is less comprehensive, it is more likely to produce valid vaccination coverage estimates. Use of this standardized measure can inform quality improvement efforts and facilitate comparison of HCP influenza vaccination among facilities.

A qualitative analysis of the impact of healthcare personnel influenza vaccination requirements in California

ObjectiveUsing qualitative methods, we explored the implementation of California's 2007 influenza immunization requirements of hospital-based health care personnel (HCP). MethodsWe conducted nine case studies of California hospitals with different HCP vaccination rates and policies. Case studies consisted of interviewing 13 hospital representatives and analyzing relevant hospital documents, including influenza policies. We also conducted 13 semi-structured phone interviews with key state and county public health officials, union representatives, and officials of various professional healthcare organizations. ResultsOur qualitative results suggest that California's vaccination requirements likely did not increase influenza vaccination uptake among HCP. The law was not strong enough to compel hospitals with low and medium vaccination rates to improve their vaccination efforts, and hospitals with high vaccination rates were able to comply fully with the law by continuing to do what they were already doing – namely offering vaccinations to HCP, providing education about the risks of influenza and the benefits of vaccination, and obtaining signed declinations from those who refuse vaccination. Nonetheless, we found that by publicly raising the issue of influenza vaccination in the context of public safety and healthcare quality, California's law encouraged hospitals to develop and implement data systems to monitor the effectiveness of vaccination promotion efforts and prompted discussions, and, in some cases, adoption of stricter vaccination requirements at hospital or county levels. ConclusionsOur findings generally support the literature that suggests that permissive influenza vaccination requirements, though politically feasible, provide little direct incentive for hospitals to focus efforts on increasing HCP vaccination rates.

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

To describe practices for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) with emphasis on correlates of increased vaccination rates. Survey. Volunteer sample of hospitals in Louisiana. 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. 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%). 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.

Reliability and Validity of a Standardized Measure of Influenza Vaccination Coverage among Healthcare Personnel

To evaluate the reliability and validity of a standardized measure of healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination. Acute care hospitals, long-term care facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, physician practices, and dialysis centers from 3 US jurisdictions. Staff from 96 healthcare facilities randomly sampled from 234 facilities that completed pilot testing to assess the feasibility of the measure. Reliability was assessed by comparing agreement between facility staff and project staff on the classification of HCP numerator (vaccinated at facility, vaccinated elsewhere, contraindicated, declined) and denominator (employees, credentialed nonemployees, other nonemployees) categories. To assess validity, facility staff completed a series of case studies to evaluate how closely classification of HCP groups aligned with the measure's specifications. In a modified Delphi process, experts rated face validity of the proposed measure elements on a Likert-type scale. Percent agreement was high for HCP vaccinated at the facility (99%) and elsewhere (95%) and was lower for HCP who declined vaccination (64%) or were medically contraindicated (64%). While agreement was high (more than 90%) for all denominator categories, many facilities' staff excluded nonemployees for whom numerator and denominator status was difficult to determine. Validity was lowest for credentialed and other nonemployees. The standardized measure of HCP influenza vaccination yields reproducible results for employees vaccinated at the facility and elsewhere. Adhering to true medical contraindications and tracking declinations should improve reliability. Difficulties in establishing denominators and determining vaccination status for credentialed and other nonemployees challenged the measure's validity and prompted revision to include a more limited group of nonemployees.

Using a validated health promotion tool to improve patient safety and increase health care personnel influenza vaccination rates

This study employed the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to determine whether health care personnel (HCP) influenza-related risk perceptions and efficacy beliefs could be used to segment individuals into meaningful groups related to vaccination uptake, absenteeism, and patient safety beliefs. After pilot interviews, a questionnaire was administered to 318 hospital-based HCP (80%) andnonclinical support staff (20%) in Lexington, KY, in 2011. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 29 respondents. Cluster analysis was used to create 4 groups that correspond to the RPA framework: responsive (high risk, strong efficacy), avoidance (high risk, weak efficacy), proactive (low risk, strong efficacy), and indifference (low risk, weak efficacy). A significant association was found between membership in 1 or more of the 4 RPA groups and the 3 study variables of interest: influenza vaccination uptake (F7,299=2.51, P<.05), influenza-related absenteeism (F7,269=3.6, P<.001), and perceptions of patient safety climate (F7,304=6.21, P<.001). A subset of respondents indicated the principal reasons for not getting vaccinated were "had one before and got sick anyway," "concerned about vaccine safety," and "no convenient time." In follow-up interviews, HCP indicated that employee vaccinations were altruistic, increased herd immunity, and important for patient safety. The RPA framework is a valid health promotion tool for improving patient safety, targeting specific groups for interventions, and improving HCP influenza vaccination rates.