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
Are you speaking of children worldwide #s?. Because malnourished children can get deathly ill from a cold. Malnourished children need real food and nutrients. That's what keeps measles, the cold, the flu and most other infectuous diseases not so dangerous. Btw, I'm amazed at the outrage to push vaccines, but, when vaccines actually cause 140,000 children to be crippled for the rest of their lives, nothing is said. Well, besides, well, "that's the breaks" of our "risk/benefits" that we determine.
You realize how ridiculous this sounds right?
I became an Oompa Loompa when Gene Wilder sang Pure Imagination.
Ok well, it supposedly "stopped the spread" of a mild childhood disease (not the plague) that we were encouraged to get, and be immune for life. It still didn't stop the 6 who were vaccinated from getting it, so no guarantees there either. And, as far as I know, no one "suffered" much either. Those who were not vaccinated are now immune for life! There is no way anyone can prove everyone in the park were in contact with those who had the measles. I would imagine once noticed they were kept out of the public. So, the measles vaccine is taking credit for something unproven (and not very scientific is it).
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Additionally, I may be incorrect about this assumption (Boston, maybe you know?) but Measles does not produce lifelong immunity. I know the vaccine doesn't. That's why boosters are required.
Also, I'm going to post the best thread on the Internet. I want you to scroll through it and find the measles posts.
Stories from pre-vax days:
https://allnurses.com/post8329335-num1.html
The thing is, you can sit in an ivory tower an decry the institution of science and feel safe the consequences of the diseases themselves are far less than the consequences of the vaccinations. You're dead wrong. (Pun intended.)
Ok well, it supposedly "stopped the spread" of a mild childhood disease (not the plague) that we were encouraged to get, and be immune for life. It still didn't stop the 6 who were vaccinated from getting it, so no guarantees there either. And, as far as I know, no one "suffered" much either. Those who were not vaccinated are now immune for life! There is no way anyone can prove everyone in the park were in contact with those who had the measles. I would imagine once noticed they were kept out of the public. So, the measles vaccine is taking credit for something unproven (and not very scientific is it).
This clearly shows your lack of understanding as measles as one of the most contagious diseases known to man. I wouldn't use the description "mild childhood disease" for an illness that has long term consequences of increased risk of death for years, more than 15 years actually post infection actually.
I think many many on this thread have attempted to persuade you and it's useless. You, by your own admission, are not a healthcare professional and your sole purpose for joining AN was to peruse vaccine debate. In my opinion you are looking to score yourself some pats on the back by "waking up" a nurse or two. I don't think it has worked. Healthcare professionals usually understand science, and medicine, and how to vet internet sources for credibility. You are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm sure you are well educated in your "science", but, reality is what speaks to me. Health has not improved in the last 50 years. It's only become more dependent on synthetic drugs that may take care of one thing, but cause 10 other ill-effects, calling for more synthetic drugs to target those symptoms. I'm sorry, but, there are better ways to deal with even infectuous diseases that have been so magnified, including how many other vaccines that are now "necessary". The fact that I (being very susceptible to respiratory problems all of my life) can "escape" the ravages of flu for 10 years, not having a vaccine, shows me they do not have to be the "scourge" they have become, that is, if one is actually educated in less dangerous/toxic ways of health. That's my reality now, and many others who are learning for themselves. I wanted to at least give one nurse here a chance to find out for herself. Having 4 difficult flu episodes in 5 years shows the ill-effect of the vaccine that's all.
Stories from pre-vax days:https://allnurses.com/post8329335-num1.html
The thing is, you can sit in an ivory tower an decry the institution of science and feel safe the consequences of the diseases themselves are far less than the consequences of the vaccinations. You're dead wrong. (Pun intended.)
My "ivory tower"? I listened to conventional medicine for years, not questioning, assuming they're expertise, being on 4 asthma meds including steroids. I also "listened" and got the vaccine! But, then got the flu soon afterwards. I learned for myself alternatives (like simple vitamins) work just as well if not better, without the side-effects. Going whole-food organic helps even more. I didn't get either advice from conventionals. Mention a vitamin and it's like you have 2 heads, and the usual "You get enough in your food!", which is totally amazingly un-"scientific" since there's no way anyone would know how much they themselves get or need in their own foods, let alone someone else thinking they do, despite all their "education" in it. Disease is a result of poor nutrition and lack of natural immunity built up with vitamins in foods, (or supplements if/when needed) thankfully today. I don't have a problem with good technology either. I have 'survived' years without a vaccine, and I'm ok with that anyway. Ok, so I'm done here...for now. :)
I'm sure you are well educated in your "science", but, reality is what speaks to me. Health has not improved in the last 50 years.
I want you to show actual proof from a RELIABLE resource that this is true.
In the last 50 years, we have seen advances in the control and treatment of communicable diseases. We have learned how to utilize proper nutrition and have further examined sanitation for better living conditions. Food deserts have been recognized and there has been active and ongoing effort to eliminate them. Social and economic policy has recognized the need for access to healthcare by increasing funding and availability to care (Medicare and Medicaid). We've increased our understanding of so many health conditions and for some, truly have perfected diagnosis and treatment. We sharpened our diagnostic tools and can detect and treat many conditions far sooner.
But wait - lets back up to that beginning part there. "We have seen advances in the control and treatment of communicable diseases". 50 years ago, in the 60s, we did something that I think most probably never thought possible. We ERADICATED a preventable disease - small pox. How did we do that? Vaccination.
To your indignant insistence that you feel like you have been bullied by being told the blood is on your hands, allow me to get in line behind all those other bullies and say that you, and others like you, are the reason why we can't get rid of these deadly diseases (you know, the ones that aren't the plague).
As for the conditions that are getting more frequent (non-communicable diseases - kidney failure, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, etc.), these are not new conditions, but they are increasing. A lot of these issues are increasing mostly for two reasons: 1 - people are living so much longer and bodies can only get so old before deteriorating, and 2 - people are way too sedentary and they love horrible cholesterol and calorie-laden food that gives them no actual nutrition. So, basically, people are either living to death, or they're destroying their own bodies. THAT is the only part of health trends that are not doing that well. Vaccine-preventable illnesses should NOT be happening, if we're doing our part.
It's only become more dependent on synthetic drugs that may take care of one thing, but cause 10 other ill-effects, calling for more synthetic drugs to target those symptoms.
If you have a chronic condition that is treated by a med that gives you 10 frustrating side effects, change that med. It's absurd to load up on even more pills when better options may be available. A decent MD/NP/PA would recognize changing the problematic med is a reasonable solution.
And yes, people may very well be taking more medications than before. It's because of the chronic conditions I listed above, and any other chronic condition you could think of. Two examples:
56 year old, 300 lb male comes in to the ED complaining of cough x 3 week, leg swelling, intermittent chest pain and increasing shortness of breath. A chest x-ray and blood work show that this person has congestive heart failure. His vitals show he has hypertension. He gets admitted, and begins his life-long journey with a beta-blocker, diuretic, and probably an additional anti-hypertension med. He needs these medications to literally survive. Without them, he may fill his lungs with fluid, destroy his kidneys, and destroy his heart. So, ~3 meds to live a longer life? Or skip them, knowing you won't survive after a little while? He's only 56. THIS is a very typical presentation of an overweight, sedentary person who does very little to maintain their own health. It's not just the meds they need. They have to change their whole normal routine. Exercise, weight loss, daily weight monitoring, cutting cholesterol, cutting fat, definitely cutting salt. When it gets as bad as this guy has it, it's sad but often they don't make lifestyle changes. But, they do more often take their meds, and that's a better start than NOT taking them.
32 year old female with only known medical history of spinal fractures presents to ED with altered mental status. Medication history includes low doses of opiates, muscle relaxers, and NSAIDs. Patient relies on those medications to actually maintain the active lifestyle her kids need from her, to be able to get out of bed in the morning and take care of herself, to not suffer the pain she WOULD feel without. It is determined the medications involved probably don't directly cause altered mental status, but one does decrease seizure threshold. Working diagnosis - absence seizures, which is confirmed through EEG. Now, in addition to pain management, the patient requires a neuroleptic. Without the neuroleptic, this woman can't drive, can't be left safely to take care of herself or her kids. This is required. First neuroleptic, bad side effects. Tried a second one. Not only is this one effective, it is also used to treat nerve pain. Now she has a medication that can help her take less of her other medications.
Both of these scenarios are very real, very serious, and absolutely require medications. The first scenario, this is often the most common patient I get at work. The second scenario? That one is me. It is so easy to judge "over" medicating when you are generally healthy. The reason medication usage is on the rise is because it is needed. I am beyond thankful that they are available, and that new types come on the market all the time. Just because I have a neuroleptic that is perfect for me, doesn't mean that it will be perfect for someone else.
I'm sorry, but, there are better ways to deal with even infectuous diseases that have been so magnified, including how many other vaccines that are now "necessary". The fact that I (being very susceptible to respiratory problems all of my life) can "escape" the ravages of flu for 10 years, not having a vaccine, shows me they do not have to be the "scourge" they have become, that is, if one is actually educated in less dangerous/toxic ways of health.
Is it "respiratory problems all your life", or is it since you were pregnant. For real, pick one story and stick with it.
Not getting the flu proves literally nothing. It only proves that IF you were even exposed in the first place, you didn't manage to get it in you. That is the ONLY thing that means. Most people don't get the flu every single year. Some people may even go decades like you have. Last year was my first time in decades. No exaggeration. I tested positive for it, and was thankful it was gentle. That's where if the vaccine doesn't work, it is still helpful. Even the government and those following the vaccine effectiveness rates still came out and said it was a crappy year for vaccines. This WILL still happen sometimes. It is a calculated risk well worth taking.
And by the way, your self identified respiratory issues puts you in the one of highest risk categories for respiratory complications from the flu. That means when this lucky streak you are on ends, you are significantly at risk for requiring an ICU admission with mechanical ventilation. You are at very high risk of death. When the bronchospasm/constriction does not respond to the vitamin C (it won't), you will be relying on EMS to get to you in time. This is a terrible, naive gamble.
That's my reality now, and many others who are learning for themselves. I wanted to at least give one nurse here a chance to find out for herself. Having 4 difficult flu episodes in 5 years shows the ill-effect of the vaccine that's all.
Who is this magical 4 bad flu episodes person you keep talking about? And once again, I ask you - did this person get tested for the flu, or is it an assumption that that is what it was?
Having 4 difficult "flu episodes" in 5 years has literally nothing to do with the flu vaccine. NOTHING.
No nurse here will be finding out for him or herself any of what you have said because what you are saying is not based on any reality whatsoever. What they are finding out is how scary and stubborn anti-vaxxers are and how strongly they cling to complete conspiracy crap.
Horseshoe, BSN, RN
5,879 Posts
Measles is not a "mild childhood disease." Even now, 140,000 plus people die of it every year. As in the year 2015.
WHO | Measles
rusti1 cannot possibly be this obtuse. He has to be a troll.