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
Amazing how you can show someone the truth - over and over - supported by scientific evidence, and yet they continue to be blind to it, or (purposely?) misunderstand what is being presented.It is exhausting. Glad several of you are willing to fight the good fight.
I'm done. It's one thing to not know something or not understand the information. Willful blindness is another thing.
concerned lady said:Hi OCNRN63,You wrote: "I am specifically addressing your comment that cancer patients on clinical trials may be given placeboes. You still have not responded to my rebuttals."
My reply: Those who consider whether to be part of clinical trials, could decide whether they want to be part of a trial or not, knowing that they might get an actual (real) placebo (saline injection or "sugar pill", etc.), as part of the clinical trial.]
I'm going to say something in all caps because yes my intent is to yell. This post is one of the most uneducated, uninformed and irresponsible things I have ever heard an alleged nurse say.
WE DO NOT EVER GIVE A PLACEBO TO A CANCER PATIENT ON A CLINICAL TRIAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AMORAL, UNETHICAL AND TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER!
To any non health care worker or visitor to this site. Under no circumstances should you give any weight to this person's posts she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. If your loved one is on a clinical trial please be assured that they are absolutely receiving treatment with the the intent to achieve remission or cure.
For the first time in my association with all nurses I am so angry I don't care if I sound rude. The damage this person is potentially causing could have some seriously far-reaching affects on innocent, sick and scared people who think we are the "experts". So assign me points, ban me whatever you need to do. I don't want to see someone die because of the dreck this person keeps posting.
I'm going to say something in all caps because yes my intent is to yell. This post is one of the most uneducated, uninformed and irresponsible things I have ever heard an alleged nurse say.WE DO NOT EVER GIVE A PLACEBO TO A CANCER PATIENT ON A CLINICAL TRIAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AMORAL, UNETHICAL AND TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER!
To any non health care worker or visitor to this site. Under no circumstances should you give any weight to this person's posts she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. If your loved one is on a clinical trial please be assured that they are absolutely receiving treatment with the the intent to achieve remission or cure.
For the first time in my association with all nurses I am so angry I don't care if I sound rude. The damage this person is potentially causing could have some seriously far-reaching affects on innocent, sick and scared people who think we are the "experts". So assign me points, ban me whatever you need to do. I don't want to see someone die because of the dreck this person keeps posting.
I'm crushing on you more than BostonFNP. Right now.
GOOD FOR YOU for posting this, and yes, I am yelling as well.
I'm going to say something in all caps because yes my intent is to yell. This post is one of the most uneducated, uninformed and irresponsible things I have ever heard an alleged nurse say.WE DO NOT EVER GIVE A PLACEBO TO A CANCER PATIENT ON A CLINICAL TRIAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AMORAL, UNETHICAL AND TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER!
To any non health care worker or visitor to this site. Under no circumstances should you give any weight to this person's posts she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. If your loved one is on a clinical trial please be assured that they are absolutely receiving treatment with the the intent to achieve remission or cure.
For the first time in my association with all nurses I am so angry I don't care if I sound rude. The damage this person is potentially causing could have some seriously far-reaching affects on innocent, sick and scared people who think we are the "experts". So assign me points, ban me whatever you need to do. I don't want to see someone die because of the dreck this person keeps posting.
This post should not be assigned points; rather the post should be repeated as many times as necessary to assure any non nurses reading this that at no time would any cancer patient or any type 1 diabetic trying a new insulin in a drug trial ever receive a placebo. Not only is this post very well written, but it is right on the money.
WE DO NOT EVER GIVE A PLACEBO TO A CANCER PATIENT ON A CLINICAL TRIAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AMORAL, UNETHICAL AND TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER!
To any non health care worker or visitor to this site. Under no circumstances should you give any weight to this person's posts she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. If your loved one is on a clinical trial please be assured that they are absolutely receiving treatment with the the intent to achieve remission or cure.
Thank you so much for your post FlyingScot! 10^6 likes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi OCNRN63,You wrote: "I am specifically addressing your comment that cancer patients on clinical trials may be given placeboes. You still have not responded to my rebuttals."
My reply: Those who consider whether to be part of clinical trials, could decide whether they want to be part of a trial or not, knowing that they might get an actual (real) placebo (saline injection or "sugar pill", etc.), as part of the clinical trial.
@concerned lady
Your post literally sent chills down my spine. I wonder if you grasp the enormity of the horror that you are proposing. You'd actually have a physician look a patient in the eye and ask them to participate in a study that carries a ~50% risk of letting their cancer progress without any kind of treatment offered? A vast majority of physicians aren't soulless monsters. They wouldn't be a part of such an unethical and immoral trial. It's insulting and frightening that you or anyone else thinks that this study design would be accepted by healthcare professionals.
I know full well that supporters of alternative treatments have no qualms when it comes to recommending "treatments" with no proven effect but despite this knowledge, I'm still shocked to my core by what you're suggesting.
Concerned lady, I don't understand why you're so fixated on placebo. Apart from the obvious ethical problem with placebo in a cancer treatment trial, as previously described in this thread, a promising new cancer treatment can and should be compared to the best available conventional treatment. That gives researchers ample data. You can find out if the new treatment is more successful in terms of survival and cure, or if it has comparable benefit perhaps it has fewer or less serious side effects. There's no need (and ethically can't be done) to compare to placebo.
Please understand that anyone who attempts to scare patients away from conventional treatment without a solid scientific rationale for attempting to do this, is in my opinion partly responsible for that patient's fate. What gives anyone the right to gamble with the lives of other human beings?
Amazing how you can show someone the truth - over and over - supported by scientific evidence, and yet they continue to be blind to it, or (purposely?) misunderstand what is being presented.It is exhausting. Glad several of you are willing to fight the good fight.
This is a known phenomenon, and this thread could go on for 200 pages (as it appears it might) and it's not likely to change anyone's mind, as I pointed out 'waaaaaay back on page 17 ...
This is a known phenomenon, and this thread could go on for 200 pages (as it appears it might) and it's not likely to change anyone's mind, as I pointed out 'waaaaaay back on page 17 ...
But it did! At least, one student who had read through (most) of the thread, learned what those of us with an education were saying about influenza and why vaccination is important....and she's GETTING ONE for the first time. I'm sorry I can't recall her (his??) name off the top of my head, but it's here on the thread :)
So yes, changing one person's mind is what happened, and I dearly hope more than one. Those who hold on tightly to unfounded rhetoric and links to delusional websites...you're right, they are NEVER going to change their minds. Neither, too, will the minds of those who understand WHY the science is what is is change (but those minds SHOULDN'T change, for obvious reasons).
I honestly thought when I posted the Tuskegee Experiment/Study information this aberration from "Concerned Lady" would just STOP. I mean, how can it be said any clearer? What is so hard to understand about this? CHILDREN learn about this today, and THEY understand it..so....once again, are we dealing with ignorance (willful, even?) or stupidity? This is NOT an informed debate, this is NOT a discussion among professionals on a topic that has "sides".
This is a situation in which someone who has claimed she is an RN (albeit retired, and based on the writings here, out of practice and nursing education for at least 60 years) has had a platform to confuse and mislead those who are admittedly NOT medical or nursing professionals in the first place. Lay people read this site and expect those of us with licenses to have a clue regarding what we are discussing. I can only pray that no one chooses their course of treatment based on some of the utter nonsense and downright lies posted.
People are simply NOT PERMITTED (not since that infamous study I cited) to take part in a study in which the outcome for their participation is the expectation of harm, and even death. Desperate people will sign anything. That DOES NOT MEAN that we, as healthcare professionals, should DO IT.
Ethics classes, it seems, were not in the curriculum of all of those claiming to be RNs. Emphasis on CLAIM.
But it did! At least, one student who had read through (most) of the thread, learned what those of us with an education were saying about influenza and why vaccination is important....and she's GETTING ONE for the first time. I'm sorry I can't recall her (his??) name off the top of my head, but it's here on the thread :)
Yes, I did see that one person who didn't have strong opinions either way but hadn't gotten flu shots in the past said that s/he has decided to get a shot this year, and that's good. But the debating with the anti-vaxx crowd, as satisfying as it may be, isn't going to change any of their minds, regardless of how compelling the evidence offered appears. In fact, the evidence suggests that, the stronger the evidence presented (to the contrary of one's existing position), the more likely one is to resist and embrace one's existing position even more strongly.
OCNRN63, RN
5,979 Posts
Here is an article from the World Health Organization (WHO) which discusses when use of placebo in vaccination clinical trial may/may not be appropriate:
Use of Placebo in Vaccination Clinical Trials
This is the point at which I give up trying to present factual information.