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
What's the percentage of any one getting a disease (like measles which is a mild one for most, which I had along with everyone else as a child), to one vulnerable and getting it? Is the percentage comparable to those who actually have had bad effects from vaccines (not just hypothetical)? I think those numbers should be available in order to prove how effective vaccines are to force them on anyone. I've read page after page of children who were vaccine injured and horrendously, some to death, yet you all don't seem to care about them so much, only dismissed with, "well, it will save a vulnerable child somewhere, someday", or so it seems. As far as masks worn, I would actually think nurses should wear them all the time in a hospital considering how many are concentrated and vulnerable. And, to protect themselves btw. I guess I'll end this here too :)
I think those numbers should be available in order to prove how effective vaccines are to force them on anyone. I've read page after page of children who were vaccine injured and horrendously, some to death, yet you all don't seem to care about them so much, only dismissed with, "well, it will save a vulnerable child somewhere, someday", or so it seems.
Show where you have read pages of children injured by influenza vaccine.
This population-level self-control study looked at 251,000 children that received the trivalent influenza vaccine; they found "no evidence of important medically attended events associated with pediatric influenza vaccination".
France, E. K., Glanz, J. M., Xu, S., Davis, R. L., Black, S. B., Shinefield, H. R., ... & Chen, R. (2004). Safety of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine among children: a population-based study. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 158(11), 1031-1036.
Moderators and fellow AN members :), I apologize for veering a bit off course but some statements are so dangerous that I feel that they need to be challenged.Concerned lady, I would never "poo poo" a cancer survivor but I will call the claim that holistic methods alone has ever cured cancer, rubbish.
If you or anyone else manages to convince even one cancer patient to reject/decline traditional treatment and choose alternative methods instead, that may well cost that patient his or her life. That's why I say it's dangerous to advocate for non-proven methods. The efficacy of these methods is not supported by evidence.
I find your use of words cutting, burning and poisoning to describe successful medical treatment methods, deeply distasteful. I hope that I'm wrong, but it almost seems that the intent is to scare people away from treatments that we know work.
I have to wonder, do you call an emergency c-section when the life of the mother or fetus is at risk, cutting? Are you against all forms of surgical interventions? Or is that term reserved for surgically removing cancerous tumours?
I don't think that you understand the mechanism of action of radiation therapy. It's either that or you're intentionally making it sound like something it isn't. It's not burning.
Radiation therapy can either be external beam, brachy therapy (radiation source temporarily placed inside the tumour or in a body cavity) or (permanent) implantation of seeds (often I-125).
External beam therapy uses ionizing radiation. This means that the energy used is sufficiently high to either excite an atom (displacing an electron further from the atom nucleus) or ionize it (the electron isn't just displaced, but removed from the atom thus forming an ion pair).
In Europe (and I assume in the US too) the most commonly used external beam method is photon radiation (ie electromagnetic radiation, zero mass, zero charge) but also partlicle radiation like electrons and protons are used. Electrons are good for tumours and sometimes lymph nodes near the surface of the body as electrons don't penetrate as deeply as photons.
Anyhow.. what ionizing radiation does is that starts a process that causes damage to the cell's DNA (it does other things too, but I don't want to bore you to tears on the off-chance that you're still reading this
). If we're lucky we get double strand breaks. Why do we want double strand breaks? Because we don't want the cancerous cells to keep on replicating. We actually want apoptosis or atrophy and the replication to cease. Cancerous cells usually replicate more rapidly than normal cells. And fortunately for us they are also usually less successful at repairing themselves after damage to their DNA than normal/healthy cells.
Do you know the cell cycle?
G0 --> G1 --> S --> G2 --> M --> G0 and on and on and on...
G2 and M (mitosis) phases are normally radiosensitive and very radiosensitive, G1 and S moderately resistant and G0 (resting state) pretty much resistant. So we aim to "attack" the cancer cells just as are they are structurally preparing to divide or when they actually are dividing. Cancer cells typically cycle through this rather quickly and we "attack" with radiation.
So as you see, there's no burning involved.
To help increase your understanding of radiations therapy, here's a text that describes the biologic basis for RT.
Biologic Basis of Radiation Therapy - Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine - NCBI Bookshelf
If you want to learn more about ionizing radiation interacts (lose energy) with cells in the body you can look up photoelectric effect, Compton scattering and pair production. Again, no burning!
Forgive me people, I've always been a physics nerd
![]()
Concerned lady, could you please describe the mechanism of action of holistic methods on cancer cells and how they manage to cure cancer and link some relevant research.
There's no billion dollar support for that type of thing. So research will not be plenty, if any. Now cancer treatment that is extremely profitable…..
Very sad people don't understand how "research" really gets funded.
There is a middle ground, but one has to think beyond what hey are told or read. There is a much bigger picture that these "educated" people tend to look blindly past without questioning.
Show where you have read pages of children injured by influenza vaccine.This population-level self-control study looked at 251,000 children that received the trivalent influenza vaccine; they found "no evidence of important medically attended events associated with pediatric influenza vaccination".
France, E. K., Glanz, J. M., Xu, S., Davis, R. L., Black, S. B., Shinefield, H. R., ... & Chen, R. (2004). Safety of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine among children: a population-based study. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 158(11), 1031-1036.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf
And these are only the people who knew enough to seek compensation. For every person who reports a reaction, there are thousands more whose doctors advised them that "Vaccines do no harm".
Someone who does not get the Flu vax, does not get the Flu so does not pass it to patients is more dangerous than this? Deaths by medical mistakes hit records | Healthcare IT News
Did you actually read the article? If you had, you would have understood that vaccinations were never mentioned. So, you are building a case without a foundation.
I am sorry that anyone ever has to fight cancer, period, and this includes:
relatives of mine, who went to the grave following doctors' orders, rather than trying holistic methods, when allopathic methods weren't working enough in their specific cases,
and even my own husband, who is fighting (lower grade, thankfully) prostate cancer, using holistic methods learned from prostate cancer SURVIVORS from the "Cancer Control Society", and suggestions made by a book called:
"A Holistic Approach to Prostate Treatment", written by Aaron E. Katz, M.D., Director-Center of Holistic Urology, Columbia University Medical Center (NYC).
I am so sorry to hear about your husband, truly. Hopefully as an RN you are well aware of the data surrounding "low grade" prostate cancer, survival rates, and the implications for screening. The reality is that most men with low risk prostate cancer will die of something else before the cancer becomes a threat, whether they take megadoses of vitamin C or simply follow their "allopathic" doctor's advice to eat a balanced diet high in fruits and vegetables, get regular exercise and decrease stress.
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.
Adults are free to use or reject whatever treatment they want- as long as they are not denying medical care to their children. As an APRN, my job is to make sure I provide them with evidence based recommendations and advice. If they want to ignore my advice and choose coffee enemas instead of a lumpectomy and radiation, then that's their choice. I will make sure they have the information necessary to minimize harm, but I am not going to lie to them about the evidence.
However. That is neither here nor there. The problem is not with patients who choose "alternative medicine." The problem is HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS and snake oil salesmen swindling vulnerable patients with pseudoscientific garbage, that at BEST wastes the patient's money and at WORST delays their access to actual, effective medicine.
And for the record, good nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, and a healthy lifestyle ARE NOT ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts
It boggles my mind the people that read editorials but never look at what those editorials are based on.
Medical errors occur, and at times they cause death. But the number being discussed there simply isn't accurate. A author, who attributed his son's death to medical malpractice, took the findings of a 4,000 person study which identified a medical error rate of 1.4% and extrapolated it to 34 million hospitalizations and concluded that medical errors caused 400k deaths.