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
you can say that, because you know it won't get down.
As the old saying goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." There are always "outlier" cases, but they don't prove anything. The fact that you are aware of one person who appeared to have benefitted from IVC doesn't really mean anything. Every smoker is happy to tell you about someone s/he knows who smoked three packs a day all of her/his adult life and died peacefully of old age at 97, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for you and killing a lot of people.Do a legitimate, double blind, controlled study that shows statistically significant results, and then we can talk. Just a thought ...
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)?
I do, every year.
2)__ Does your employer have a mandatory influenza vaccination policy as a condition of employment? If yes, where do you work?
Its either get the vaccine or wear a mask during the CDC determined 'flu season'. And its STRICTLY enforced. I work in CT.
3)__ What concerns do you have about the flu vaccine?
None really, other than that often the strain you are vaccinated for isn't the strain thats going around that year.
4)__ Do you know if anyone who has been released from their job because they did not get the flu vaccine?
Nope. But I know of many who refuse the vaccine (not for medical reasons) who will moan, groan and complain about having to wear the mask the entire time the flu season is in effect.
your assumption that you would have been hospitalized with pna, is based on what?
This is in response to whoever called me ShuntRN lol now I can't find the original post. Not that it matters, because no one's mind is going to changed by this yearly debate. Ugh.Just to clarify, there were two flu vaccines that year because the swine flu strain wasn't in the original vaccine. It was too late into production to make it in the original batches.
Secondly, you missed the entire point of that story. Without the vaccines, I probably would've ended up hospitalized with pneumonia. Instead of pneumonia, I got secondary bronchitis. Hence the extra long recovery time.
If I had to live it over again, I would get both without hesitation. Please read the entire post before latching onto a single passage. I do make sense occasionally :)
Maybe we should just get rid of air bags in cars, since they don't prevent people from dying in head-on collisions 100% of the time.macawake, I appreciate your exhaustive rebuttal of these frivolous anti0science supporters. GOK I don't have the patience for it.
because you don;t see the point/understand, doesn't make it wrong. the earth is not flat.
you can say that, because you know it won't get down.
No, I "can say that" because I would be delighted to see someone do some studies and see the results. If there were legitimate research that showed a meaningful effect, I would take that seriously. Until then, there isn't really anything to talk about (although we're now at >700 posts, 54 pages, and counting ...)
If the advocates of the various "alternative" therapies are so convinced of the efficacy of those therapies, why aren't they doing the studies that would show all the rest of us that they're right?
Similarly, it is not possible to say it did not. but if you going to deny that relationship, how do prove anything?
I just read this again. HOW do you actually determine that it was the "IVC" that saved him? I'm guessing that he was not able to swallow pills by the time they administered it, since they went the IV route. I imagine the reason it had to be fought for is because tamiflu is effective at treating the flu, as is symptomatic support. I seriously doubt a hospital eliminated literally every treatment except giving vitamin C (if they did, again, this is obviously why a lawyer was needed as the doctor would be negligent to do so). Understanding how medical care and pathophysiology work, it literally is impossible to say the "IVC" is what worked.
Deceptively, some "homeopathic" remedies are not homeopathic at all. 10x arnica gel is an herbal preparation, not homeopathic. Zycam and Quit Nits are other examples.
OMG, I was obviously too tired when I was posting last night, when I referred to arnica as "homeopathic" and I really should have said "herbal remedy"! Thanks for the correction. I used arnica as an example of an HERBAL treatment that has valid applications; my whole point was that simply because something is synthetic or naturally-derived doesn't impact on whether it works. If it WORKS, and there is data to support it working, that's that. HOWEVER, when someone "believes" something works (and there is no data to support that as factual), we're back to chatting about placebo effect again
In response to the comment that we "have to respect the beliefs of parents" and other patients who believe in false information as the truth....NO, I do NOT "have to respect" fallacies regardless of WHAT they may "believe".
When it comes to religious convictions, ones where no one can PROVE one way or the other whether this Deity or that Creator or those gods have powerful abilities over us mortals....for THAT, I say that respecting the choice of people to believe what they want is the way to go. Where NO PROOF exists, "belief" is enough.
Simply believing that their form of worship for their chosen deity is correct doesn't hurt anyone else at all. ACTING on those beliefs to negatively impact another person, though, is where the line is drawn and "respect" comes off the table in favor of "defense".
And that's where we are in this non-debate over mainstream medicine versus alternative medicine: anyone can "believe" what they want, it does NOT, however, make it TRUE when there is PROOF otherwise. SCIENCE is not religion: if there is proof, overwhelming evidence demonstrating a truth, THAT is what is what needs to be recognized, and NOT the "but I think it could be something else" philosophies so often espoused here. I cannot be forced to recognize conspiracy theories as valid, and I cannot be forced to recognize nonsense masquerading as factual data to be reasonable. I cannot be forced to respect what is not worthy of respect. It's the "C'mon, everybody play nice in the sandbox" mentality of insisting that EVERY viewpoint is worthy of respect that landed us in this mess of decreased vaccination rates increasing the rates of preventable diseases in the first place!
elkpark
14,633 Posts
So, let me get this straight; when the CDC official you invoke as a respected and trustworthy authority on the dangers of vaccines and conspiracy and cover-ups related to same says something you agree with, he's a respected and trustworthy authority whose opinions we should all respect. When he says something you don't agree with, he's lying.
Ok, got it. As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeeeenient ..."