Many hospitals are moving towards creating mandatory influenza vaccination policies as a condition of employment. Such mandates are causing surefire responses on both sides of the fence. What is the push behind the movement, and what is causing the pushback?
Updated:
First, let me just go over some of the symptoms of the flu, and then we will get down to business on the controversy surrounding the push to create mandatory flu vaccines for healthcare workers:
I can't think of anyone who wants any of these symptoms, or to come down with the flu, can you?
Influenza vaccination research has clearly documented the benefits of receiving the flu vaccine (Google it - you will find a plethora of information...however, I will list some links at the end of this article for your information). However, even though there is sufficient evidence to prove the benefits of receiving the flu vaccine, vaccination rates among healthcare workers are pitifully low. In 2013, only 55% of nurses in the frontlines were vaccinated.
Organizations such as The Joint Commission, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control, Healthy People 2020, etc., etc., have stated their position on recommending the flu vaccine for healthcare workers in order to decrease the risk of exposure and reduce deaths. Due to this recommendation, many healthcare facilities are now creating mandatory flu vaccine policies as a condition of employment.
Employers who create mandatory policies will have exemptions, of course. Exemptions are made for medical and religious exceptions. For places that do not have a mandatory flu vaccine, they may "strongly recommend" the vaccination and may have a declination form for employees to submit if they refuse the vaccine. Additionally, some employers will enforce refusers to wear a mask during flu season while they are at work in order to protect the patients and the employee.
Evidence has shown that there are more than 36,000 deaths in the US each year related to influenza, and more than 200,000 hospitalizations. Influenza is the 6th leading cause of death. Healthcare workers are the leading cause of influenza outbreaks in the healthcare system. up to 50% of people who are infected by the flu virus do not fill ill for several days and can spread the virus to people at risk of complications and death from the flu. Additionally, evidence shows vaccination decreases mortality by 40%, decreases the spread of nosocomial infections by 43%, and decreases absenteeism by 20-30%.
Additionally, there is the ethics to consider. As healthcare workers, we have all taken an oath to "do no harm". As a nurse caring for patients who are not in their most physically healthy state, do we take the vaccination in order to prevent spreading the flu to our vulnerable patients, in order to "do no harm"? We must consider this when we make our decision to take or refuse the vaccination.
I have the names of a few hospitals, and this is by no means a comprehensive list. This is based on a ListServe survey of hospitals and these are the responses received:
Refusal may be largely due to misconceptions related to the vaccine. Fears that the immune system will cause them to get the flu, beliefs that hygiene and better nutrition are more helpful than the vaccine, fear of needles, beliefs that the vaccine does not work, and fear of side effects. Others believe that they have a constitutional right to refuse the vaccine and that mandatory policies are violating these rights.
(taken from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health outline of flu vaccine talking points for managers)
The flu shot does not give people the flu. It uses inactivated ("dead") virus. People may still catch a cold or other virus that the vaccine is not designed match.
Studies have shown that flu vaccination prevents flu in 70% to 90% of healthy adults younger than 65 years old.
You need a new vaccine every year - the virus changes over time.
Serious adverse reactions are very rare. They are explained on the CDC's Vaccine Information Statement, which is distributed when the vaccine is administered.
Local short-term reactions - such soreness at the vaccination site, slight fever, achy feeling - may occur but usually do not last long. Over the counter medicines are helpful. Even short-term reactions are much less bothersome than catching the flu and feeling very sick for days.
Your patients are at-risk, and possibly some friends and family members. You can be infected with the flu virus but not feel ill - and can still transmit flu to at-risk patients.
Inactivated influenza vaccine is effective in preventing transmission and reducing complications of the flu. In years when there is a close match between the vaccine and circulating virus strains, the vaccine prevents illness among approximately 70%--90% of healthy adults under 65 years of age. Vaccinating healthy adults also has been proven to lead to decreased work absenteeism and use of health-care resources, including use of antibiotics. Strong protection is also expected when the vaccine is not a close match with circulating strains, with 50%--77% effectiveness in these instances. In addition, effectiveness against influenza-related hospitalization for healthy adults from inactivated vaccine is estimated at 90%.
All healthcare facilities will be facing the choice of creating a mandatory influenza vaccination in the near future, if they have not already. In order to make an informed decision on the topic, we must have information. Knowledge is power. Before you make a blanket statement on pros or cons, have the information you need, know the research, and make an educated decision.
Please respond to this article by answering the following questions:
References
American Association of Family Practitioners. (2011). AAFP supports mandatory flu vaccinations for healthcare personnel. Retrieved from: AAFP Supports Mandatory Flu Vaccinations for Health Care Personnel
ATrain. (2014). To accept or refuse the flu vaccine. Retrieved from: ZZZ_133_Influenza: Module 7
CDC. (2014). Vaccination: Who should do it, who should not and who should take precautions. Retrieved from: Vaccination: Who Should Do It, Who Should Not and Who Should Take Precautions | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC
Influenza Action Coalition. (2015). Influenza vaccination honor roll. Retrieved from: Honor Roll: Mandatory Influenza Vaccination Policies for Healthcare Personnel
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2014). Talking points for managers. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/p6nbg2u
National adult and influenza immunization summit. (2015). Vaccinating healthcare personnel. Retrieved from: Vaccinating Healthcare Personnel - National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit
NursingTimes. (2014). Why do health workers decline flu vaccination? Retrieved from: http://www.nursingtimes.net/Journals/2014/11/28/y/k/x/031214-Why-do-health-workers-decline-flu-vaccination.pdf
TJC. (2012). R3 Report: Requirement, rationale, reference. Retrieved from: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/R3_Report_Issue_3_5_18_12_final.pdf
QuoteThanks.Looks like they are talking about "Universal influenza immunization programs" vs. targeted vaccine programs. The headline gives the impression that flu shots in general may blunt effectiveness.
It goes on to state that we should get shots. And do it early.
No... it does not. It says that we should target who we give the vaccines to, rather than just give them to everyone with a pulse.
The early part is related to the antivirals used to treat the flu.
Every time I give you a shovel, you use it to pile on more sand instead of digging yourself out
Well, that would be an opinion, what's correct correlation and what isn't. Does it mean it's necessarily wrong? One is supposed to only take what pro-vaxxers say then? So, basically, one should hang up their brains to any red flag that goes off, toss caution to the wind, and give their child or themselves up to the vaccine roulette. Take whatever vaccine they're told and shut up. The vaccine court is there just because parents are whiney greedy so and so's, looking for money off their child's illness. The vaccine makers are exempt from any responsibility. And those who get the vaccines, pay for the suits "allowed" to get through by the vaccine court. It's all sewn up nice and neat isn't it.
These vaccines are not proven and some times it is not even the strain of flu that was predicted. Get on your soap box about vaccines but they are too risky. Besides if a nurse calls in sick it may be the only days they are going to get off. Stop pushing that stuff. You must work for a pharmaceutical company. Money grubbers.
Actually, vaccines have been scientifically proven to be efficacious and safe thousands of times, I am not sure how you could state that unless you are just too blinded by bias to notice.
Yes. We are all employed by the pharmaceutical company, as is everyone that trusts in science or does science or reads science or just differ with you on their own opinion.
In 2013, vaccines accounted for $24 billion in pharma revenue compared to the total revenue of 1.23 trillion. Essentially the revenue for vaccines is non-significant in pharmaceutical revenue; there are rounding errors larger than the total vaccine revenue.
Well, that would be an opinion, what's correct correlation and what isn't. Does it mean it's necessarily wrong? One is supposed to only take what pro-vaxxers say then? So, basically, one should hang up their brains to any red flag that goes off, toss caution to the wind, and give their child or themselves up to the vaccine roulette. Take whatever vaccine they're told and shut up. The vaccine court is there just because parents are whiney greedy so and so's, looking for money off their child's illness. The vaccine makers are exempt from any responsibility. And those who get the vaccines, pay for the suits "allowed" to get through by the vaccine court. It's all sewn up nice and neat isn't it.
Sadly, this is exactly what many on the "anti-vax" side of the table think.
It has nothing to do with "taking what they say" or "tossing caution to the wind" or playing "roulette". It has to do with "science" and "data" and "evidence".
Ironically, while not wanting to "take what someone says", most anti-vaxxers get most of their information from blogs and pseudoscientists which essentially just tell them what to think.
1)__ Do you take the flu vaccine yearly? If you do not, what is the reason you do not participate (if you don't mind answering this question)?
No. I take it when I feel like it. The statistics for the effectiveness of the flue vaccine is inaccurate. It typically works only 60% of the time. Last year it was even less effective than that. It was even in the news. I don't take it because I don't see the point in getting an ineffective vaccine. I've worked with a doctor that has never taken it for the exact same reason, even though he always asks his patient whether they want a flu vaccine and has no problem giving one. I am with the camp that thinks that the drug companies are out there to push their drugs on the public to get the maximum amount of money. They have a lot of money to do the grassroots work and to affect the lawmakers for their own gain. Seen that too many times. But really, my biggest reason for not taking it most of the time is the vaccine's ineffectiveness.
2)__ Does your employer have a mandatory influenza vaccination policy as a condition of employment? If yes, where do you work?
No.
3)__ What concerns do you have about the flu vaccine?
That it's ineffective and that sometimes you get the flue even if you get a flue vaccine. So what's the point? No I'm not afraid of needles.
4)__ Do you know if anyone who has been released from their job because they did not get the flu vaccine?
Not personally. Just from the news.
I know for a fact how Vitamin C works so well as a natural antiviral. I know because I've taken it for so long, years now, stopping within minutes so many colds, asthma attacks, and even one flu that almost got through. I know that for fact, but, conventional "science" says it's not a fact, it's a "placebo" or "snake oil". So you might get an idea what my opinion is on what "science" and "data" and "evidence" says. I have my own evidence far more credible. The difference is, I'm not forcing anyone to take Vitamin C. That's the problem with vaccines.
I took lots of science courses and was an avid reader of scientific studies. The most very basic principle of science is, "scrutinize everything". The pro-vax camp who are dead set against scrutinizing the vaccinations to the point of ignoring actual adverse reactions, a lack of efficacy, etc, to me are akin to those who used to smoke cigarettes in the day when smoking was considered healthy for your lungs, diseases emerged related to cigarette smoking, and people continued to smoke for DECADES, in total disbelief of the future consequences. Today we know better, but it was a long road for us to hardwire smoking as a cause of disease because of huge financing and fights from Big Tobacco. I've been around long enough to have administered medications to patients "for their health" only later to see that drug recalled because it was causing adverse effects (fatal arrhythmias,GI bleeding, etc). Hence, I refuse to close my eyes and simply accept information thats fed to me by sources that may have a financial or other conflict of interest in the subject. As healthcare providers, we have a fiduciary obligation to scrutinize our interventions and whatever we promote, so I always read information from both sides of any scientific claims, as well as scrutinize the sources of "peer reviewed" studies. Again I've been around long enough to have actually administered drugs and interventions that passed the scientific, peer reviewed sniff tests, only to see adverse reactions then see those things recalled. It is our fiduciary obligation to the world as healthcare providers that we continually scrutinize and stay aware of the effects of the medications, interventions and advice that we give. This is my good advice.
BostonFNP said:It's an interesting topic to study but no real study has been done on it. The article linked is an editorial based on extrapolated findings that were not statistically significant.More research there is absolutely needed though based on the data.
I bow to BostonFNP in regards to the study.
trinitymaster said:No...it does not. It says that we should target who we give the vaccines to, rather than just give them to everyone with a pulse.
The early part is related to the antivirals used to treat the flu.
Every time I give you a shovel, you use it to pile on more sand instead of digging yourself out
In between a day of deep cleaning getting ready for company, I quickly skimmed your links so I stand corrected on what they were saying. However, as BostonFNP said more research is needed.
Love the photo! Might have to steal that.
Re: Mommy "just knew" her kid was on drugs....except she didn't know crap as to why, and thankfully (eventually) let the doctors who COULD diagnose the problem do just that.
Okay, what she didn't know is why the child had the behavior change, but, she knew there was one, and there had to be a reason. If her child was 6 months old, I doubt she'd accuse him/her of "being on drugs", but, she would know something changed, and something affected her child (a vaccine maybe?).
Re: Mommy "just knew" her kid was on drugs....except she didn't know crap as to why, and thankfully (eventually) let the doctors who COULD diagnose the problem do just that.Okay, what she didn't know is why the child had the behavior change, but, she knew there was one, and there had to be a reason. If her child was 6 months old, I doubt she'd accuse him/her of "being on drugs", but, she would know something changed, and something affected her child (a vaccine maybe?).
What is this in reference to? Did I miss a post about a kid using drugs and mommy suspected it?
rusti1
133 Posts
Wow, exactly what I do, 10 years without the flu, and only one cold. From one who used to be so susceptible. Vit C is amazing :) Funny to me is how those in "health" reject easily what may work naturally, without seeing for themselves.