1206. #HitMeWithYourFluShot: Consolidating a 3-Week Influenza Vaccination Program into a One-Day Drill

Abstract

Background
Since 2011 our health system has achieved >90% employee influenza vaccination via a 3-week intensive nonmandatory program offering entrance location vaccinations. We partnered with Emergency Management to consolidate this process into 1 day, fulfilling a dual purpose of conducting an emergency vaccination drill.

Methods
The health system comprises 2 hospitals (913-bed and 250-bed) and campuses, multiple off-campus clinical and nonclinical sites, and a free-standing emergency department, employing nearly 12,000 people in 4 states. A multidisciplinary team planned the drill, scheduled 4 am-9 pm at 3 locations in the 2 hospitals. In addition, roving vaccination teams visited all off-campus sites to either perform vaccinations or deliver supplies. Employees not scheduled to work were encouraged but not required to come in; all eligible employees working that day were expected to be vaccinated. Nonemployees (including physicians, volunteers and retirees) were also included. To promote the event, we developed posters and other communications using a #HitMeWithYourFluShot hashtag, and included radio stations, therapy dogs, photo booths and other activities. After the event we surveyed participants to elicit feedback.

Results
During the 1-day event we vaccinated 7267 (69%) employees, along with 1594 nonemployees, similar to prior 3-week campaigns (figure). Nearly 300 employees volunteered to vaccinate or perform other duties. The roving teams visited 81 practices at 42 separate locations, traveling >250 miles. Of those completing the post-event survey (n = 656), 79% found the event very convenient, and 61% of those who had participated in prior campaigns found this format somewhat or much better. Employee vaccination rates for the entire season was 92%.

Conclusion
This effort demonstrated that we could achieve high levels of employee flu vaccination in a single day in a large and geographically diverse healthcare system, using a mass vaccination drill format that included multiple sites of vaccination as well as roving vaccination and transport teams. We identified the lack of a master list with locations of all off-campus employees as the greatest opportunity. Participants favorably accepted the drill format and employee engagement was high.

Disclosures
All authors: No reported disclosures.

Full text

Poster Abstracts • OFID 2019:6 (Suppl 2) • S433
CynthiaL. Gibert, MD, MSc3; Georey Gorse, MD4; TrishM. Perl, MD; MSc5;
TrishM. Perl, MD; MSc5; ConnieS. Price, MD 6; Lewis Radonovich, MD7; MariaC.
Rodriguez-Barradas, MD8; Michael Simberko, MD9; MaryT. Bessesen, MD10;
CharlotteA. Gaydos, MS, MPH, DrPH11; Derek Cummings, PhD2; 1University of
Colorado/Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; 2University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida; 3George Washington University School of Medicine and Health
Sciences, Washington DC, 4Saint Louis University School of Medicine and St. Louis
VA Health Care System, Saint Louis, Missouri; 5University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; 6Denver Health and Hospital, University of Colorado
School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado; 7National Personal Protective Technology
Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 8Michael E.DeBakey
VAMC and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; 9New York University, New
York City, New York, 10University of Colorado-Denver, Aurora, Colorado, 11Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Session: 145. HAI: Occupational Infection Prevention
Friday, October 4, 2019: 12:15 PM
Background. Healthcare personnel (HCP) are exposed to many individuals with
respiratory illness while providing care. Because children more frequently present for
care with respiratory infections compared with older individuals, we hypothesized that
HCP working in pediatric settings might experience greater risks of respiratory in-
fection than HCP working in adult settings. e Respiratory Protection Eectiveness
Clinical Trial (ResPECT) prospectively compared respiratory protection among HCP
at seven health systems across the United States between 2011 and2015.
Methods. Swabs were collected from asymptomatic participants twice each re-
spiratory season. Swabs were collected from symptomatic HCP within 24 hours of
self-reported respiratory symptoms and again if participants were still symptomatic
aer 7days. PCR conrmation for 13 viruses was done by a single laboratory. We com-
pared hazards of multiple outcomes associated with respiratory infections among HCP
working in pediatric clinics and HCP working in clinics that care for adults.
Results. e main outcomes were risk factors for symptomatic and asymptom-
atic viral respiratory infections. Atotal of 5,180 participant-seasons were evaluated
from 2011–2015, 1,130 of which worked solely with children. ere were 403 and
1,162 incidents of asymptomatic and symptomatic PCR-conrmed respiratory infec-
tion, respectively. Risk factors associated with respiratory infection in the entire cohort
included age, race, vaccination status, smoking status, wearing contacts, total house-
hold members, study site, and age of patient population. HCP working exclusively with
pediatric patients had 1.5 (95% CI 1.2–1.8) times the rate of respiratory virus infection
compared with HCP working only with adults. HCP who worked with both popula-
tions had 1.4 times (95% CI: 1.2–1.7) the rate of infection with respiratory viruses.
Conclusion. e risk of respiratory infections was increased among HCP that
saw children. is risk was not mitigated by working only part-time with children and
extended to those who identied as working with both adult and pediatric populations.
Our ndings highlight the need to target interventions in pediatric settings to decrease
HCP acquisition of respiratory infections.
Disclosures. Trish M. Perl, MD; MSc, 7–11: Advisory Board; medimmune:
Research Grant.
1205. Healthcare Personnel Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs Towards Infection
Prevention and Control Measures for Protection from Respiratory Infections
MaryT. Bessesen, MD1; Lewis Radonovich, MD2; SusanM. Rattigan, BA3;
Derek Cummings, PhD3; MariaC. Rodriguez-Barradas, MD4;
Michael Simberko, MD5; CynthiaL. Gibert, MD, MSc6;
Ann-Christine Nyquist, MD, MSPH7; ConnieS. Price, MD8;
Georey Gorse, MD9; CharlotteA. Gaydos, MS, MPH, DrPH10;
TrishM. Perl, MD, MSc11; TrishM. Perl, MD, MSc11; 1University of Colorado-Denver,
Aurora, Colorado; 2National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ; 3University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida;
4Michael E.DeBakey VAMC and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; 5NYU,
New York City, New York; 6George Washington University School of Medicine
and Health Sciences, Washington DC, 7University of Colorado/Children’s Hospital
Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; 8Denver Health and Hospital, University of Colorado
School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado; 9Saint Louis University School of Medicine and
St. Louis VA Health Care System, Saint Louis, Missouri, 10Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, Maryland, 11University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
Session: 145. HAI: Occupational Infection Prevention
Friday, October 4, 2019: 12:15 PM
Background. Healthcare personnel (HCP) knowledge and attitudes toward
Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures are important determinants of prac-
tices that can protect them from acquisition of infectious diseases from patients. We
aimed to describe HCP knowledge and attitudes concerning IPC measures over time
in the context of a clinicaltrial.
Methods. ResPECT was a multi-center, multi-season cluster randomized clinical
trial designed to compare the eectiveness of medical masks (MM) and N95 respira-
tors (N95) for preventing acute respiratory illnesses in HCP employed in outpatient
clinical settings. At the beginning of each respiratory virus season, participants com-
pleted a survey instrument to measure IPC knowledge. At the beginning and end of
each season participants completed a survey to assess attitudes and beliefs about IPC
measures, especially MM andN95.
Results. Apre-study and post-study survey pair was available for 88.1% of par-
ticipant seasons. ere were no signicant dierences in demographic variables or
job assignment between survey respondents and nonrespondents for each participant
season. Participants correctly identied 59.8% to 63.4% of IPC measures that should be
used by HCP when exposed to patients with symptoms of acute respiratory illness, or
at high risk of infection. ere was modest improvement in the knowledge score over
time among providers who participated for multiple years in the study. In the rst pre-
study survey of IPC attitudes and beliefs, 88.5% and 87.9% of participants identied
at least one reason to avoid using either MM and N95, respectively (Figure 1). At the
post-season survey, the proportion of participants reporting a reason to avoid MM fell
to 39.6% (IRR for pre- vs. post-season 0.15, 95% CI 0.13–0.17) and 53.6% reported a
reason to avoid N95 (IRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.51–0.66).
Conclusion. HCPknowledge of IPC precautions was poor, suggesting a need for
better IPC education and accountability in the outpatient setting. When given incen-
tives to comply with processes toward which they had negative attitudes at baseline,
HCP realized that medical masks and N95 respirators were comfortable enough to
wear for patient encounters and interfered with their work processes less than expected.
Disclosures. Trish M. Perl, MD; MSc, 7–11: Advisory Board; medimmune:
Research Grant.
1206. #HitMeWithYourFluShot: Consolidating a 3-Week Influenza Vaccination
Program into a One-Day Drill
Marci Drees, MD, MS; Erin Meyer, DO; Ed Durst, CHEP, MBA;
Tab e Mase, MSN, ARNP, COHN-S; Hiran Ratnayake, MA;
Samuel Wetherill, PharmD; Russel Sharif, MPH; Kathleen Wro te n , MSN, RN, CIC;
Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware
Session: 145. HAI: Occupational Infection Prevention
Friday, October 4, 2019: 12:15 PM
Background. Since 2011 our health system has achieved >90% employee inuenza
vaccination via a 3-week intensive nonmandatory program oering entrance location
vaccinations. We partnered with Emergency Management to consolidate this process
into 1day, fullling a dual purpose of conducting an emergency vaccinationdrill.
Methods. e health system comprises 2 hospitals (913-bed and 250-bed) and
campuses, multiple o-campus clinical and nonclinical sites, and a free-standing
emergency department, employing nearly 12,000 people in 4 states. A multidiscip-
linary team planned the drill, scheduled 4 am-9 pm at 3 locations in the 2 hospitals.
In addition, roving vaccination teams visited all o-campus sites to either perform
vaccinations or deliver supplies. Employees not scheduled to work were encouraged
but not required to come in; all eligible employees working that day were expected to
be vaccinated. Nonemployees (including physicians, volunteers and retirees) were also
included. To promote the event, we developed posters and other communications using
a #HitMeWithYourFluShot hashtag, and included radio stations, therapy dogs, photo
booths and other activities. Aer the event we surveyed participants to elicit feedback.
Results. During the 1-day event we vaccinated 7267 (69%) employees, along with
1594 nonemployees, similar to prior 3-week campaigns (gure). Nearly 300 employees
volunteered to vaccinate or perform other duties. e roving teams visited 81 prac-
tices at 42 separate locations, traveling >250 miles. Of those completing the post-event
survey (n = 656), 79% found the event very convenient, and 61% of those who had
participated in prior campaigns found this format somewhat or much better. Employee
vaccination rates for the entire season was92%.
Conclusion. is eort demonstrated that we could achieve high levels of em-
ployee u vaccination in a single day in a large and geographically diverse healthcare
system, using a mass vaccination drill format that included multiple sites of vaccin-
ation as well as roving vaccination and transport teams. We identied the lack of a
master list with locations of all o-campus employees as the greatest opportunity.
Participants favorably accepted the drill format and employee engagement washigh.
Disclosures. Al l authors: No reported disclosures.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article-abstract/6/Supplement_2/S433/5605700 by guest on 24 October 2019