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
Pretty unethical those here who are mocking Patient Choice. Judge, judge, judge. Ethically, our jobs are not to push our personal beliefs upon patients, but to inform them of the choices, the risks and benefits associated with them, and it's the patient's FREE CHOICE how they decide to approach their disease process. This is called Informed Consent, it's the cornerstone of what we do. I hope nobody ridicules their cancer patients for seeking complimentary therapy. Difficult enough to be dying then some know it all with a 2 year degree comes along on a high horse ridiculing how the dying are trying to best cope with what they're going through. Sorry but if my patient is dying, they can do what they wish. I had a dying patient who instead of pain meds wanted a small square of chocolate every hour, which was ok with the doctor, and I complied. It made him extremely happy and that's how it should be for the dying. I did not spout off about how the patient was wrong because randomized peer reviewed studies brought me to the conclusion that Opiates would be better than chocolate. Chocolate was right for the patient. Chocolate it was!
No one's right to choose has been compromised. Everyone has the right to decide whether or not they will take the flu vaccine. Those who decline might face a consequence of being required to wear a mask in order to continue to work at that facility, and others might have to look for employment elsewhere. There ALWAYS remains that ability to choose. No nurse has ever been FORCED to have a vaccine against their will. And after reading through most of the thread where posters actually addressed the questions asked, I saw very few incidents of anyone actually being fired for refusing a flu shot. A couple who said they knew of someone, but as far as I recall, no one here has reported being fired for refusing the shot.
It's called Coersion and it's Unethical. At the point where the RN is asked to take a medication into his or her body, that staffmember becomes a Patient. To coerce a Patient into taking a medication he or she does not want to take is considered assault in some states, to coerce a Patient into doing something is unethical and in many facilities a violation of the Code of Conduct. In my facility, coercing any patient like that would be a violation of the Code of Conduct and grounds for immediate termination, we signed a contract to this effect.
It's called Coersion and it's Unethical. At the point where the RN is asked to take a medication into his or her body, that staffmember becomes a Patient. To coerce a Patient into taking a medication he or she does not want to take is considered assault in some states, to coerce a Patient into doing something is unethical and in many facilities a violation of the Code of Conduct. In my facility, coercing any patient like that would be a violation of the Code of Conduct and grounds for immediate termination, we signed a contract to this effect.
And YET: the nurse still retains her right to say no. And as stated, none of the MANY nurses responding here to this survey who refuse the flu shot have been fired.
A big straw man imo. Nurses as well as patients are free to choose to say NO, and they do so often, largely with no consequences. Others can search out less rigid institutions to work for.
Ethically, our jobs are not to push our personal beliefs upon patients, but to inform them of the choices, the risks and benefits associated with them, and it's the patient's FREE CHOICE how they decide to approach their disease process.
I give patient's my professional beliefs all the time. I advocate from them doing what I think is best from them. I never force a patient to take a medication but I often talk them into a medication based on my education, training, and the extant evidence. Patient's don't come to me to let them direct their care, they come to me because it is my job to advise them what is best for their wellness. I don't find that unethical.
I am not getting paid by "bigpharma" to push their product.
Pretty unethical those here who are mocking Patient Choice. Judge, judge, judge. Ethically, our jobs are not to push our personal beliefs upon patients, but to inform them of the choices, the risks and benefits associated with them, and it's the patient's FREE CHOICE how they decide to approach their disease process. This is called Informed Consent, it's the cornerstone of what we do. I hope nobody ridicules their cancer patients for seeking complimentary therapy. Difficult enough to be dying then some know it all with a 2 year degree comes along on a high horse ridiculing how the dying are trying to best cope with what they're going through. Sorry but if my patient is dying, they can do what they wish. I had a dying patient who instead of pain meds wanted a small square of chocolate every hour, which was ok with the doctor, and I complied. It made him extremely happy and that's how it should be for the dying. I did not spout off about how the patient was wrong because randomized peer reviewed studies brought me to the conclusion that Opiates would be better than chocolate. Chocolate was right for the patient. Chocolate it was!
Your example isn't even applicable. Nobody would force a dying patient to take pain meds against their will. Or chemo. Or radiation. Or...anything. And nobody is ridiculing desperate people's choices bad or good.
The real travesty would be the crack-pot telling the dying patient that they heard from the internet if he eats a square of chocolate every hour he will be cured and that pain meds are evil because they are posion and line the pockets of "big pharma".
There is actually a clinical trial right now using sodium bicarb as an adjunct pain reliever in cancer patients. Sadly, the preliminary estimates show that a dose of sodium bicarb that would be therapeutic would also likely be fatal.
Yeah, but that's just "science," so that doesn't mean anything -- bring on the NaHCO3!!! Ya gotta belieeeeeeeeve!
Pretty unethical those here who are mocking Patient Choice. Judge, judge, judge. Ethically, our jobs are not to push our personal beliefs upon patients, but to inform them of the choices, the risks and benefits associated with them, and it's the patient's FREE CHOICE how they decide to approach their disease process. This is called Informed Consent, it's the cornerstone of what we do. I hope nobody ridicules their cancer patients for seeking complimentary therapy. Difficult enough to be dying then some know it all with a 2 year degree comes along on a high horse ridiculing how the dying are trying to best cope with what they're going through. Sorry but if my patient is dying, they can do what they wish. I had a dying patient who instead of pain meds wanted a small square of chocolate every hour, which was ok with the doctor, and I complied. It made him extremely happy and that's how it should be for the dying. I did not spout off about how the patient was wrong because randomized peer reviewed studies brought me to the conclusion that Opiates would be better than chocolate. Chocolate was right for the patient. Chocolate it was!
Of course I would never ridicule a dying person's choices. Whatever makes him/her happy.
I will ridicule people who post "cancer cures" that are nothing more than anecdotal reports and cannot be replicated in a study.
I have a friend who died from Parkinson's. She went to a chiropractor several times a week because he assured her he would be able to stop her tremors and make her walk again. Of course, that meant she had to take all kinds of vitamins and supplements in addition to the chiropractic treatments.
Well, curing her tremors didn't happen. When she died, she was wheelchair bound and her wallet was significantly lighter. In a stroke of poetic justice, "Dr. Z" dropped dead from a massive MI while jogging for a charity event.
It doesn't say for a "cure", but for pain, and if it didn't help I would think the pt would be the first to say so. Just a quick look and, it looks like chocolate does have something to do with reducing pain:
Well, Steph at least your sheep won't die from CA.
True - but his buyer will be making a rack of lamb or two with him. He's a Market Lamb.
Such a mob mentality. Nurses are quick to support scientific claims because it makes them feel more intelligent by association. I have lived long enough to know that science is indeed flawed, and often produces "evidence" that is later refuted.
We are quick to support scientific claims because it makes us feel more intelligent by association? Really? Wow, I guess education should be discouraged then.
And YET: the nurse still retains her right to say no. And as stated, none of the MANY nurses responding here to this survey who refuse the flu shot have been fired.A big straw man imo. Nurses as well as patients are free to choose to say NO, and they do so often, largely with no consequences. Others can search out less rigid institutions to work for.
HUGE STRAWMAN.
Funny coincidence. A relative discussed a recent death of her uncle from melanoma. He was a believer in natural cures and saw an A.K. Chiropractor (Applied Kinesiology) who didn't refer her uncle to a medical doctor and instead tried all kinds of natural cures. There are chiropractors out there who believe everything emanates from the spine. Every disease known to mankind. (Not lumping all chiropractors in this).
The kind of melanoma this man had has a high rate of survival if treated early. His was not and by the time he saw a real doctor, it was too late and he died.
That's truly tragic.
It doesn't say for a "cure", but for pain, and if it didn't help I would think the pt would be the first to say so. Just a quick look and, it looks like chocolate does have something to do with reducing pain:
The NY Daily News is not a reliable source.
The study was done in rats. They also found water worked just as good. I don;t think any of us are surprised "distraction" helps reduce pain. We have used it sicne the dawn of medicine.
The author conclusion:
Brainstem-mediated defense of the consumption of palatable foods may explain, at least in part, why overeating tasty foods is so irresistible even in the face of opposing cognitive and motivational forces.
The actual study: Foo, H., & Mason, P. (2009). Analgesia accompanying food consumption requires ingestion of hedonic foods. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(41), 13053-13062.
This may actually be my favorite conclusion in a study ever.
Are you a nurse? I hope not, because a nurse should know that a coffee enema could be deadly in a cancer patient, esp. if that cancer pt has low platelets, is neutropenic, and/or is anemic.Do you need someone to explain the complications this sort of enema can cause?
No I am not a nurse, but, I've been learning a bit about natural health in the last few years. And coffee enemas look like they have pros and cons, so it would be good to be correctly informed of anything prior to doing it. I wouldn't look to conventionals to be unbiased any more than anyone else, and why it's good to find things out for one's self these days.
Horseshoe, BSN, RN
5,879 Posts
No one's right to choose has been compromised. Everyone has the right to decide whether or not they will take the flu vaccine. Those who decline might face a consequence of being required to wear a mask in order to continue to work at that facility, and others might have to look for employment elsewhere. There ALWAYS remains that ability to choose. No nurse has ever been FORCED to have a vaccine against their will. And after reading through most of the thread where posters actually addressed the questions asked, I saw very few incidents of anyone actually being fired for refusing a flu shot. A couple who said they knew of someone, but as far as I recall, no one here has reported being fired for refusing the shot.