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
For those who may have been under a rock, this has been the recent buzz about Peer Reviewed studies and Scientific Integrity (aka *gasp* some scientists have been hasty, inaccurate or unethical):How science goes wrong | The Economist
Hank Campbell: The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility - WSJ
And so the solution is to embrace claims made by people which have not held up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever?!
Okay, I postulate that cotton candy cured my friend's cancer. I can state that there has been no falsified research used to bolster my claims. The fact that there has been no research done on my claims shows how pure it is. I am going to educate everyone I know about this cure. And I can do so with a clear conscience, since there have been no studies - NOT EVEN ONE-which refute my claim. BOO YAH!
...no surprise that highly competitive people sometimes seek the easy route to glory in their field. Or, as we've seen in this thread, so desperately want to believe in their hypothesis even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The first step is admitting that you have a problem.
You have achieved this.
Welcome to the group, WEIRDSCIENCE
By the way, as far as I can tell, the guy who cured his prostate CA with bone mets via molasses and bicarbonate has sadly passed. There was an obit online in the Bellingham Herald which has now been archived. Guy was from Birch Bay, WA so the name/place match up.
His Facebook/website hasn't been updated, probably not a good idea to publicize it when family's still making money off his book. I'm in no way making light of this. I feel sad for his family and followers. Heck, I feel sad when chemo and radiation doesn't work...not everyone can be cured, and that SUCKS.
I'd post links, but this is all a three minute Internet search away.
Back to vaccination?
Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis includes the following, about RRP (Recurrent Respiratory Papilloma):
"....2. Adjunct Therapies
The goal of these adjunct therapies is to reduce or eliminate the need for future surgeries. There are a variety of adjunct therapies for RRP. Typically most of these therapies can be described via one (or occasionally two) of four mechanisms of action: anti-viral, hormonal, immunological or chemotherapeutic. Currently there is no single treatment that has been found to be generally effective in controlling RRP. The following represent therapies that have proven to be effective in treating RRP. See Table 1 for a summary of patient/parent-assessed responses to a variety of adjunct treatments for RRP....
Indole-3-carbinol/Diindolylmethane (I3C/DIM) has shown significant efficacy based on preliminary results of an uncontrolled study and responses to the RRP Foundation adjunct therapy surveys, with about 55% to 60% of patients showing at least some reduction of disease activity. I3C is a phytochemical that is found in cruciferous vegetables (i.e., cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, etc.) and DIM is the major active by-product of I3C when it is broken down by stomach acid. The primary mechanism of action for these compounds is hormonal, specifically they tend to induce an estrogen metabolite balance that discourages papillomavirus growth. With regard to RRP, this mechanism may be particularly effective in hormonally sensitive laryngeal tissues, such as the vocal cords (for both men and women). While the hormonal mechanism does appear to be the primary factor by which I3C/DIM helps to prevent RRP, these compounds also have additional beneficial properties that should help them oppose malignant conversion. The advantages of this therapy are that it is virtually without side effects or toxicity and it involves a simple protocol for patients (i.e., a daily dosage once a day taken orally)..."
----------------------------------------------------------
So, there's one category in "that" (some holistic ways to fight cancer),
that includes the members of the cabbage/mustard family (cruciferae).
Sincerely, Concerned Lady
And so the solution is to embrace claims made by people which have not held up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever?!Okay, I postulate that cotton candy cured my friend's cancer. I can state that there has been no falsified research used to bolster my claims. The fact that there has been no research done on my claims shows how pure it is. I am going to educate everyone I know about this cure. And I can do so with a clear conscience, since there have been no studies - NOT EVEN ONE-which refute my claim. BOO YAH!
But which color cotton candy should a cancer patient use? I mean, I get that obviously pink cotton candy would be for women with breast cancer, but what about blue cotton candy?
LEFTFLANKPAIN
32 Posts
Again...we will see. Strong legal arguments abound. Strong ethical issues abound.