Do Declination Statements Increase Health Care Worker Influenza Vaccination Rates?

Departments of Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.42). 10/2009; 49(5):773-9. DOI: 10.1086/605554
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In response to health care worker influenza vaccination rates that are below desired targets, strategies designed to stimulate vaccination have been proposed, including the use of declination statements for those refusing vaccination. The impact of these statements has not been thoroughly investigated and may be affected by their specific language and context. This review examines the available data on the use and impact of declination statements to increase health care worker vaccination rates and notes some potential pitfalls and issues that may arise with their use.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: An evaluation of infection control practices was conducted following the release of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance regarding the care of pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This paper describes 9 general hospital practices. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed electronically to 12,612 members of the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN). Respondents (N = 2,304) who reported working in obstetric or neonatal settings during the pandemic completed the questionnaire. Results: Most (73%) respondents considered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidance very useful. Significantly more reported a written hospital policy for each practice during versus before the pandemic. Six of the 9 practices were implemented most of the time by at least 70% of respondents; the practices least often implemented were mandatory vaccination of health care personnel involved (52%) and not involved (34%) in direct patient care and offering vaccination to close contacts of newborns prior to discharge (22%). The most consistent factor associated with implementation was the presence of a written policy supporting the practice at the respondent's hospital. Conclusion: We offer a descriptive account of general hospital infection control policies and practices during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Factors associated with reported implementation may be useful to inform planning to protect women and children for future public health emergencies. Copyright
    American Journal of Infection Control 06/2014; 42(6):e65-70. DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2014.02.022 · 2.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health care worker (HCW) influenza vaccination rates are modest. This paper provides a detailed ethical analysis of the major options to increase HCW vaccination rates, comparing how major ethical theories would address the options. The main categories of interventions to raise rates include education, incentives, easy access, competition with rewards, assessment and feedback, declination, mandates with alternative infection control measures, and mandates with administrative action as consequences. The aforementioned interventions, except mandates, arouse little ethical controversy. However, these efforts are time and work intensive and rarely achieve vaccination rates higher than about 70%. The primary concerns voiced about mandates are loss of autonomy, injustice, lack of due process, and subsuming the individual for institutional ends. Proponents of mandates argue that they are ethical based on beneficence, non-maleficence, and duty. A number of professional associations support mandates. Arguments by analogy can be made by mandates for HCW vaccination against other diseases. The ethical systems used in the analyses include evolutionary ethics, utilitarianism, principalism (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice), Kantism, and altruism. Across these systems, the most commonly preferred options are easy access, assessment and feedback, declinations, and mandates with infection control measures as consequences for non-compliance. Given the ethical imperatives of non-maleficence and beneficence, the limited success of lower intensive interventions, and the need for putting patient safety ahead of HCW convenience, mandates with additional infection control measures as consequences for non-compliance are preferred. For those who opt out of vaccination due to conscience concerns, such mandates provide a means to remain employed but not put patient safety at risk.
    Vaccine 11/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.066 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vaccine-preventable infectious diseases may be introduced into the healthcare setting and pose a serious risk to vulnerable populations including immunocompromised patients. Healthcare providers (HCPs) are exposed to these pathogens through their daily tasks and may serve as a reservoir for ongoing disease transmission in the healthcare setting. The primary method of protection from work-related infection risk is vaccination that protects not only an individual HCP from disease, but also subsequent patients in contact with that HCP. Individual HCPs and healthcare institutions must balance the ethical and professional responsibility to protect their patients from nosocomial transmission of preventable infections with HCP autonomy. This article reviews known cases of HCP-to-patient transmission of the most common vaccine-preventable infections encountered in the healthcare setting including hepatitis B virus, influenza virus, Bordetella pertussis, varicella-zoster virus, measles, mumps and rubella virus. The impact of HCP vaccination on patient care and current recommendations for HCP vaccination against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases are also reviewed.
    Vaccine 04/2014; 32(38). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.03.097 · 3.49 Impact Factor