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
As I said before, I respect individuals who choose to vaccinate and reduce their chances of getting the flu and/or other illnesses. My right to avoid additional exposure to toxins should also be respected.
It is respected. You are completely free to work for an employer that doesn't require flu shots. There are still plenty of healthcare employers that allow employees to opt out, although the trend is clearly in the direction of requiring flu shots.
Yeah, those who have never experienced the don't really know. Let us not forget rubella, that one that does such things as in your family Jensmom.
Or, the polio and what that did to people. We are seeing many people with post polio syndrome who had polio as youngsters.
When it comes to vaccines in general, one thing that many people don't realize or don't do is spread out the vaccines in their children so they don't get the injections al at once. My daughter did that with her first child who was a preemie. She has done it with the next two as well. I think the reason why they do them all at once is that the child is there so give them all to them to assure that they get them and they don't have to come back.
As far as flu goes, work long term care and see what it does to our elderly. Last season with the mutant Influenza A, I saw it wreak havoc on out elderly. They were immunized, but as has been stated, this variety of the flu was not in the vaccine. And yes, they had the Influenza A as many were swabbed and tested.
i never experienced anything beyond chickenpox, but I don't need to to understand the facts. Rational people understand the reality of serious communicable disease, and are able to process the conspiracy theories and understand that they are not real.
as to spreading out vaccines, it's not reccomended (I think cases of premises are being more studied and holding off makes sense). There is no reason to delay vaccines for healthy infants. All it does is leave them at risk for longer. The immune system of an infant is amazingly strong. I remember reading that given all vaccines on schedule is estimated to tax something like .1% of an infants immune system. Encouraging parents to delay vaccines to alleviate fears is not a practice that is necessary or reccomended. The schedule for vaccines is well studied and the safety of the schedule is well supported by those studies. It is not random.
Agreed, there are many environmental and food-based toxins surrounding us. To clarify, I haven't drank a sip of alcohol in 7 years and very little before then and yes, I am vegan and also do not drink coffee. I am certain that toxins enter my system when I breathe and engage in other typical ADLs. That being said, why would I want to add to my baseline exposure? As I said before, I respect individuals who choose to vaccinate and reduce their chances of getting the flu and/or other illnesses. My right to avoid additional exposure to toxins should also be respected. Risk-benefit analysis doesn't only take place on the groupthink level but on the individual. We all have family histories, illnesses and knowledge of self that cannot be accounted for when the CDC makes their recommendations. My body wisdom is not an invalid source of information. rusti1 brings up a great example of an RN ending up in the ED d/t a vaccine he or she attempted to declined but was pressured into getting. That RN's body wisdom should have been respected and taken into consideration to avoid that horrible outcome.
the reason for adding minuscule amounts of toxins to your exposure is because it provides scientifically proven protection against deadly disease, and against spreading that disease. Also, you have chosen a profession that requires you to guard the health of the sick people you are caring for. If you can't choose to allow exposure to toxins in vaccines than maybe you chose the wrong career. Now, if you are saying you have a documented medical reason for not vaccinating, well that stinks, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't meet current physical fitness requirements to do the job.
Nursing requires a bit of altruism. No, we should not put ourselves in serious physical danger to care for patients. But we do have to understand we take on some risk, and we have to be ok with doing so. One of those risks is the very, very small risk of a vaccine reaction. Another is the risk of contracting Mrsa, or cdiff. Also exposure to radiation, giving toxic drugs, exposure to body fluids, exposure to physical violence with confused or.combative patients. Heck, all things considered getting a flu shot is one of the least risky things a hospital nurse is asked to do.
the reason for adding minuscule amounts of toxins to your exposure is because it provides scientifically proven protection against deadly disease, and against spreading that disease. Also, you have chosen a profession that requires you to guard the health of the sick people you are caring for. If you can't choose to allow exposure to toxins in vaccines than maybe you chose the wrong career. Now, if you are saying you have a documented medical reason for not vaccinating, well that stinks, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't meet current physical fitness requirements to do the job.Nursing requires a bit of altruism. No, we should not put ourselves in serious physical danger to care for patients. But we do have to understand we take on some risk, and we have to be ok with doing so. One of those risks is the very, very small risk of a vaccine reaction. Another is the risk of contracting Mrsa, or cdiff. Also exposure to radiation, giving toxic drugs, exposure to body fluids, exposure to physical violence with confused or.combative patients. Heck, all things considered getting a flu shot is one of the least risky things a hospital nurse is asked to do.
Your claim that unwillingness to be exposed to toxins in vaccines means someone shouldn't be a nurse is wrong on such a fundamental level, simply your opinion and nothing more.
Your claim that unwillingness to be exposed to toxins in vaccines means someone shouldn't be a nurse is wrong on such a fundamental level, simply your opinion and nothing more.
well, yes it's my opinion (since this is a somewhat opinion based discussion) but you are wrong that it is not more. The Ana code of ethics is concsidered the ethical guidelines of our profession. The Ana position on vaccination clearly states that vaccinating (including yearly influenza) is an ethical obligation of nurses. So no, it is not soley my opinion that accepting the very small risk associated with vaccinations is an ethical responsibility of our profession, and anyone that refuses to do so needs to really reconsider their choices.
From the first page I read I thought this post will die a natural death by not making it to the second page with all the warning from other posters. Anyways it has about 1165 comments now while other posts are yet to reach their 25th comment.
Hope I will be the last to comment on this "controversy"? Please let it be so!
From the first page I read I thought this post will die a natural death by not making it to the second page with all the warning from other posters. Anyways it has about 1165 comments now while other posts are yet to reach their 25th comment.Hope I will be the last to comment on this "controversy"? Please let it be so!
Why do YOU get to be last, hmm?
elkpark
14,633 Posts
No, the reason "they do them all at once" is because extensive study has found no evidence that there is any risk to doing them early in life, in quick succession, and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) specifically recommends against the currently trendy alternative immunization schedules your daughter is following, because delaying the immunizations puts the kids at risk of getting those illnesses for an extended period of time and that is considered a significantly greater risk than any risk posed by just getting the immunizations done.