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
I await the Congressional testimony of CDC (Centers for Disease Control) top scientist (phD) William Thompson, who is a "whistleblower", and who wants to get the truth out, about the cover-up of data showing a connection (causal) between some vaccines and AUTISM.
This has nothing to do with influenza. Make another thread on the topic, I would be happy to discuss it.
Please post your claims of 47-62% consistently…
In an independent meta-analysis of 10 randomized control trials the pooled efficacy for influenza vaccine was 59% [95% CI 51–67] in adults aged 18–65 years.
I don't post things without data to support it.
Osterholm, M. T., Kelley, N. S., Sommer, A., & Belongia, E. A. (2012). Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet infectious diseases, 12(1), 36-44.
The scare quotes are "science" are telling. And you are incorrect- there is only one "science." Science is a methodology for gaining knowedge about the world, not a set of static facts or beliefs. That is one of the main differences between science based medicine and "alternative" (scare quotes!) medicine.Well, what I found to be fact, through experience first, then coincidentally through other studies and findings (though your science or "methodology" excuse me, say it's false), is how Vitamin C works so very effectively against colds/flu and asthma too, yet it would be incomprehensible if I began to enforce what I found on anyone else, even if it is to "save humanity" (which I actually do believe would be far more helpful and effective in fact). There should be no discussion "mandating" anything, was my point.
[quote=BostonFNP; No one is being forced against their will. They are being offered a choice; that choice has consequences.
"Consequences" implies forced to "or else" doesn't it.
Your Quote: "And your right, by the nature of science, something could very well change tomorrow. And if there was a new major study that showed vaccines were not safe or effective, I would change my conclusion on them. But we can't be paralyzed in inaction by the fear of the future that may never come."
The "action" of administering polio vaccines to 47,000 Indian children resulted in their being crippled for the rest of their lives. There are consequences to bad actions too! If it's regarding your own decision making, then of course, it's your right to take action if you feel it's the best, but, not to involve others to do the same, I would say to that.
Your quote: "My child is fully vaccinated. It would break my heart if he was one of the rare cases of a serious side effect but I do know, because of the resounding evidence, that my child is better off and at less risk being vaccinated than not.
Would it break your heart if your children died from a disease you could have prevented?"
My children were minimally vaccinated. Only the MMR at the time. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have had them vaccinated, and been giving them Vitamin C every day along with a few others like Omega 3s, to keep them strong and healthy against childhood diseases. I did have the measles, mumps and chicken pox, and none were remarkable actually. Time off from school is all I remember :).
Sorry don't know how to isolate quotes :?
Well, what I found to be fact, through experience first, then coincidentally through other studies and findings (though your science or "methodology" excuse me, say it's false), is how Vitamin C works so very effectively against colds/flu and asthma too.
First off, what you "find through experience" is not considered "fact".
Re: vitamin C, the history is quite interesting. There were some small studies that showed some promise in megadosing vitamin C done in the late 1990s, these studies suggested it could be used both as a prophylactic and to reduce duration of symptoms. Unfortunately, subsequent large studies published that there was no statistically significant benefit for the general population.
Incidentally there did seem to be a benefit for those undergoing brief periods of strenuous exercise, so if you are a rigorous runner, that could explain your anecdotal experience.
Hemilä, H., Chalker, E., & Douglas, B. (2007). Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3.
I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall.I didn't immunize my babies for all the reasons other anti-vaxxers have mentioned. I was concerned about the adjuvants, I thought natural infection provided healthier immunity, I thought vaccines commonly shedded virus and was once in a panic after someone holding my baby told me they had just gotten an MMR booster.
I couldn't bear the thought of causing my baby pain from a shot when he wasn't even sick. And I knew that most VPD were likely to cause relatively mild illnesses in most cases. I exclusively breast fed, was very particular about giving my kids healthy, whole foods, and believed strongly in alternative remedies as a valid alternative for medical care. I believed the risks of vaccines thoroughly outweighed any possible benefit. I believed these things deeply, and surrounded myself with likeminded parents, the kind of person who asked me to bring my child over for a playdate after being diagnosed with chicken pox.
It took a while for me to recognize the fundamental fallacies in my logic. it was a humbling process, one that I was very quiet about for a long time because I feared derision from both my antivax friends for "drinking the koolaid" as well as from the provaccine community, for failing to protect my children and the rest of the community from these potentially devastating diseases.
Cognitive dissonance is hard. Realizing you are wrong about something as important as vaccines is HARD. Your faith in your own judgment is shaken, and it forces you to re-evaluate a lot of your closely held beliefs.
I fully understand why those in the anti-vax community seem to cling harder to their beliefs when presented with facts and evidence. It's a natural reaction, one we are all prone to. Hell, any science-based provider has to wrestle with this on a regular basis, as our knowledge of disease processes and health grows and changes. You ask an old school OB why he doesn't delay cord clamping and still frequently performs episiotomies, and he will have ALL sorts of sciency reasons.
Our brains do not like to modify previously held beliefs- it doesn't matter how smart you are or how long you have worked in health care, we are ALL prone to this problem. It takes conscious and concerted effort to be aware of this and try to compensate. And as healthcare providers, it is our ethical duty to acknowledge our human fallibility and make a good faith effort to overcome it.
I think I have a new hero. Quite an inspiration, thanks for sharing that.
First off, what you "find through experience" is not considered "fact".Re: vitamin C, the history is quite interesting. There were some small studies that showed some promise in megadosing vitamin C done in the late 1990s, these studies suggested it could be used both as a prophylactic and to reduce duration of symptoms. Unfortunately, subsequent large studies published that there was no statistically significant benefit for the general population.
Incidentally there did seem to be a benefit for those undergoing brief periods of strenuous exercise, so if you are a rigorous runner, that could explain your anecdotal experience.
Hemilä, H., Chalker, E., & Douglas, B. (2007). Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3.
:) No not a "rigorous runner"...I've had respiratory problems all my life. Bronchitis as a child, asthma as an adult. I am still "susceptible" as I found, if I don't take Vitamin C regularly, and more when needed. It's a "fact" regardless of what studies conclude, and whether I can "prove" it or not to anyone else. There are lots of things that can't be proven, but it doesn't mean they're disproven. I think that's something to understand too. Studies, it seems, are extremely limited and can be held in bias easily depending on the goal. If I took 200 mg a day, I don't know how much that would keep me from a cold. I take 1000 mg a day (more when needed). So, the study that concludes "Vitamin C does not prove effective for colds" is limited if using 200 mg. I know the study you speak of, that they found effective, but only with those who are in military and athletic (younger and in shape). I'm sorry, but, seriously, they have to be the most amusing "conclusions":sarcastic: :)
It's a "fact" regardless of what studies conclude, and whether I can "prove" it or not to anyone else.I'm sorry, but, seriously, they have to be the most amusing "conclusions":sarcastic: :)
It's a matter of semantics I guess. You are describing, at least in a scientific sense (and I struggle to think of anything in terms other than science, probably why I have such a stellar personality), "opinion": a view/judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact. "Facts" can always be proven.
As for the conclusions, I always tell my patients that "just because a study doesn't show a net effect doesn't mean that it won't help you" there is individual variation inherent in everything (why vitamin C works for some and not others, why some people have rare reactions to vaccines, why vaccines aren't 100% effective, why placebo works, etc); studies simply show that on a population scale, when individual variability is taken out of the equation, whether there is a significant difference between a control and a variable.
Here's the class I took.
I'm taking a class from Coursera on Constitutional law! (I want to prove that doing the PVT with an invalid cc violates the Constitution.)
I do support some use of vaccines, but I don't blindly buy into misdirection.But I love the the comeback from the anti-vaxxers, ""Why are you worried about my unvaccinated kids if you're so sure vaccines work?"
Because there are people out there with either compromised immune systems or contraindications for vaccines. I suppose they should do as one antivaxxer here said: "Kids with cancer or other diseases should just have to stay at home. Why should my child get vaccinated just because of them?"
Yeah...I can't even begin to tackle that one.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts
Regardless of the route into the body we are talking about the same environment. Once a chemical is in your cell (or bloodstream), they body treats it the same way regardless of how it got there.
Sure ingesting a chemical and injecting it are different because the GI system might not absorb it all, and it goes through first-pass, but the end result is the same, the chemical ends up in the cell.
The truth is that no vaccine is 100% safe. No medication is 100% safe. Inaction is not 100% safe. Decades of research have demonstrated that vaccine-related adverse effects are not statistically significant; they happen but they are rare enough that, on the whole, there is a net benefit to vaccination.
Most "bad effects" that are reported to be related to vaccines are, upon further investigation, not related to vaccines; vaccines are found to be responsible in less than 3% of cases.
Vaccines are not harmless, but neither is not vaccinating.
There is one science. Science, by its nature,does not have "sides". It is objective. What you are calling "our" science is simply science that doesn't agree with your preconceived belief. If it seems like all of science is on "our" side it's because there has never been a major credible study that has demonstrated what you already believe.
There is one "science".
No one is being forced against their will. They are being offered a choice; that choice has consequences.
And your right, by the nature of science, something could very well change tomorrow. And if there was a new major study that showed vaccines were not safe or effective, I would change my conclusion on them. But we can't be paralyzed in inaction by the fear of the future that may never come.
My child is fully vaccinated. It would break my heart if he was one of the rare cases of a serious side effect but I do know, because of the resounding evidence, that my child is better off and at less risk being vaccinated than not.
Would it break your heart if your children died from a disease you could have prevented?