Description of an Influenza Vaccination Campaign and Use of a Randomized Survey to Determine Participation Rates

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuguang (Grant) Tao ◽  
Janine Giampino ◽  
Deborah A. Dooley ◽  
Frances E. Humphrey ◽  
David M. Baron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Participation Rates ◽  
Immunization Program ◽  
Influenza Immunization ◽  
Direct Patient Contact ◽  
Johns Hopkins University

Objectives.To describe the procedures used during an influenza immunization program and the use of a randomized survey to quantify the vaccination rate among healthcare workers with and without patient contact.Design.Influenza immunization vaccination program and a randomized survey.Setting.Johns Hopkins University and Health System.Methods.The 2008/2009 Johns Hopkins Influenza Immunization Program was administered to 40,000 employees, including 10,763 healthcare workers. A 10% randomized sample (1,084) of individuals were interviewed to evaluate the vaccination rate among healthcare workers with direct patient contact.Results.Between September 23, 2008, and April 30, 2009, a total of 16,079 vaccinations were administered. Ninety-four percent (94.5%) of persons who were vaccinated received the vaccine in the first 7 weeks of the campaign. The randomized survey demonstrated an overall vaccination rate of 71.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.6%-74.0%) and a vaccination rate for employees with direct patient contact of 82.8% (95% confidence interval, 80.1%-85.5%). The main reason (25.3%) for declining the program vaccine was because the employee had received documented vaccination elsewhere.Conclusions.The methods used to increase participation in the recent immunization program were successful, and a randomized survey to assess participation was found to be an efficient means of evaluating the workforce's level of potential immunity to the influenza virus.

Failure of Bland Soap Handwash to Prevent Hand Transfer of Patient Bacteria to Urethral Catheters

1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 654-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Joel Ehrenkranz ◽  
Blanca C. Alfonso
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Isopropyl Alcohol ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Urinary Catheters ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
High Burden ◽  
Direct Patient Contact

AbstractObjective:The study was designed to compare the efficacies of bland soap handwash and isopropyl alcohol hand rinse in preventing transfer of aerobic gram-negative bacilli to urinary catheters via transient hand colonization acquired from direct patient contact. Glove juice recovery of gram-negative bacteria was considered transient colonization; catheter recovery was considered transfer colonization.Design:The contact source for gram-negative bacteria was a single “high burden” groin skin carrier ( ≥ 104/ml cup scrub fluid). Using a two-period cross-over design, 6 healthcare workers had 2 15-second contacts for each hand followed by either soap handwash or alcohol hand rinse (12 experiments with each treatment). Between 4 to 5 minutes after contact, each hand manipulated a catheter; the catheter was then cultured and the hand was glove juice tested.Results:Soap handwash failed to prevent gram-negative bacteria transfer to the catheter in 11 of 12 (92%) experiments; alcohol hand rinse in 2 of 12 (17%) (p< .001). Soap handwash failed to prevent transient colonization in 12 of 12 (100%) experiments; alcohol in 5 of 12 (42%) (risk ratio 2.4,95% confidence interval 1.2-4.7). Single gram-negative bacteria species carried at source levels ≥ 5.5 × 103/ml (heavy contamination) established transient colonization in 23 of 30 (77%) exposures following soap handwash; single gram-negative bacteria species carried at levels ≤ 3.5 × 103/ml established colonization in 1 of 22 (5%) similar exposures (p<.001).Conclusions:Bland soap handwash was generally ineffective in preventing hand transfer of gram-negative bacteria to catheters following brief contact with a heavy-contamination patient source; alcohol hand rinse was generally effective.

Correlates of Improved Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: A Survey of Hospitals in Louisiana

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 723-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kayla L. Fricke ◽  
Mariella M. Gastañaduy ◽  
Renee Klos ◽  
Rodolfo E. Bégué
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Hospital Type ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Item Questionnaire

Objective.To describe practices for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) with emphasis on correlates of increased vaccination rates.Design.Survey.Participants.Volunteer sample of hospitals in Louisiana.Methods.All hospitals in Louisiana were invited to participate. A 17-item questionnaire inquired about the hospital type, patients served, characteristics of the vaccination campaign, and the resulting vaccination rate.Results.Of 254 hospitals, 153 (60%) participated and were included in the 124 responses that were received. Most programs (64%) required that HCP either receive the vaccine or sign a declination form, and the rest were exclusively voluntary (36%); no program made vaccination a condition of employment. The median vaccination rate was 67%, and the vaccination rate was higher among hospitals that were accredited by the Joint Commission; provided acute care; served children, pregnant women, oncology patients, or intensive care unit patients; required a signed declination form; or imposed consequences for unvaccinated HCP (the most common of which was to require that a mask be worn on patient contact). Hospitals that provided free vaccine, made vaccine widely available, advertised the program extensively, required a declination form, and imposed consequences had the highest vaccination rates (median, 86%; range, 81%–91%).Conclusions.The rate of influenza vaccination of HCP remains low among the hospitals surveyed. Recommended practices may not be enough to reach 90% vaccination rates unless a signed declination requirement and consequences are implemented. Wearing a mask is a strong consequence. Demanding influenza vaccination as a condition of employment was not reported as a practice by the participating hospitals.

scholarly journals Promotion of the influenza vaccination to hospital staff during pre-employment health check: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Currat ◽  
Catherine Lazor-Blanchet ◽  
Giorgio Zanetti
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Newly Hired

Abstract Background Vaccination is the most effective prevention of seasonal influenza. Despite its recommendation and active promotion, vaccination coverage remains low among healthcare staff. The goal of the study was to test if a pre-employment health check is a good opportunity to promote future vaccination against influenza among healthcare workers newly hired by a university hospital. Methods All new hospital employees active at the bedside who underwent a pre-employment health check between the end of 2016’s influenza epidemic and the start of the next influenza vaccination campaign were randomly allocated to a control group or an intervention group. The intervention consisted of a semi-structured dialog and the release of an information leaflet about influenza and influenza vaccination during the check-up, and the shipment of a postcard reminder 2 weeks before the next vaccination campaign. Vaccination rates during the campaign were compared among the two groups. Results Three hundred fifty-seven employees were included. Vaccination rates were similar in both groups: 79/172 (46%) in the control and 92/185 (50%) in the intervention group. A significantly higher rate of vaccination was noted among physicians (70/117, 60%) than among other employees (101/240, 42%, p = 0.001). In a pre-defined exploratory analysis among physicians, the vaccination rate was higher in the intervention group (36/51, 71%) than in the control group (34/65, 52%, p = 0.046). Conclusions Promotion of the influenza vaccine during pre-employment health check did not improve the vaccination rate of newly hired hospital healthcare workers overall during the next influenza vaccination campaign. Results suggest a favourable impact on the vaccination rate of physicians. Thus, there may be an interest in using communication strategies tailored to the different categories of healthcare workers to promote the influenza vaccine during pre-employment health check. Trial registration ClinicalTrials, NCT02758145. Registered 26 April 2016.

Effect of A Hospital Campaign for Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 612-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joon Young Song ◽  
Cheong Won Park ◽  
Hye Won Jeong ◽  
Hee Jin Cheong ◽  
Woo Joo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Intervention Strategy ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Tailored Intervention ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Item Questionnaire

Objective.To identify the factors that inhibit or motivate influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods.In March 2000, we prepared 34-item questionnaire for both vaccine recipients and nonrecipients regarding demographic characteristics, factors motivating and inhibiting vaccination, and knowledge and attitudes about influenza vaccination. On the basis of the results of our survey, an aggressive hospital vaccination campaign was undertaken. In April 2004, after the 4-year campaign, the same questionnaire was again administered to HCWs.Results.In both 2000 and 2004, the main motives for undergoing influenza vaccination were “hospital campaign” and “recommendation by colleagues”; the percentage of respondents who were motivated by the hospital campaign had remarkably increased from 27% in 2000 to 52% in 2004 (P<.001), whereas the percentage who were motivated by recommendation by colleagues had not changed significantly (21% vs 14%). Qverall, the 4 reasons most frequently cited by HCWs for noncompliance with vaccination were insufficient available time, confidence in their health, doubt about vaccine efficacy, and fear of injection. In 2000, vaccination rates were below 30%, irrespective of occupation. After an aggressive vaccination campaign, the increase in the vaccination rate was highest among the nursing staff, increasing from 21% in 2000 to 92% in 2004, whereas the vaccination rate among the physicians was still below 60%.Conclusion.We conclude that a hospital campaign can markedly improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs. Both a mobile cart system and free vaccine supply contributed to improving the vaccination rates in our study. In addition, a specifically tailored intervention strategy was required.

scholarly journals The COVID States Project #62: COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among healthcare workers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lazer ◽  
Hong Qu ◽  
Katherine Ognyanova ◽  
Matthew Baum ◽  
Roy H. Perlis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Department Of Veterans Affairs ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Hospital Systems ◽  
Mandatory Vaccination

The vaccination status of healthcare workers is of particular importance, for two key reasons:First, healthcare workers have been a harbinger of trends among the broader population through the entire vaccination campaign, as they were among the first to gain access to vaccines. The early inequalities in terms of access among healthcare workers were predictive of inequalities within the broader population. The divides in terms of vaccine skepticism presaged those of the broader population; and, as we will see below, the plateauing of vaccination rates anticipated the slowdown in vaccinations within the broader population.Second, the vaccine decisions of healthcare workers have particular ramifications with respect to the spread of COVID-19, and, especially, with respect to morbidity and mortality resulting from COVID-19. In particular, unvaccinated healthcare workers are potentially a vector of infection of the elderly and the vulnerable, who have been vastly more likely to die of the disease.A recent outbreak in a nursing home in Kentucky is illustrative. Despite the fact that over 90% of the residents had been fully vaccinated, only 53% of the healthcare workers had been. In a subsequent outbreak, 31% of residents were infected (more than two third of whom had been vaccinated); and 33% of healthcare workers (20% of whom had been vaccinated). Two residents died as a result. In short, the low vaccination rate of the healthcare workers supplied the kindling for the outbreak. The question going forward is to what extent might this occur in other healthcare settings around the country.Healthcare institutions thus face critical decisions regarding the vaccination of their employees. In late July, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a vaccine mandate for all its frontline health care workers. A joint statement by nearly 60 major medical organizations called for mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers. Brown University's School of Public Health built a Hospital Vaccine Mandate Tracker to gather and list hospital systems that require their staff to be vaccinated. Many more institutions have announced that they will issue mandates once vaccines are formally approved by the U.S. FDA.

Hand Hygiene Practices After Brief Encounters With Patients: An Important Opportunity for Prevention

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca E. Dedrick ◽  
Ronda L. Sinkowitz-Cochran ◽  
Candace Cunningham ◽  
Robert R. Muder ◽  
Peter Perreiah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Median Duration ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Contact Precautions ◽  
Hygiene Practices ◽  
Direct Patient Contact ◽  
Environmental Surfaces ◽  
Healthcare Associated

Objective.To identify characteristics of encounters between healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients that correlated with hand hygiene adherence among HCWs.Design.Observational study.Setting.Intensive care unit in a Veterans Affairs hospital.Participants.HCWs.Results.There were 767 patient encounters observed (48.6% involved nurses, 20.6% involved physicians, and 30.8% involved other HCWs); 39.8% of encounters involved patients placed under contact precautions. HCW contact with either the patient or surfaces in the patient's environment occurred during all encounters; direct patient contact occurred during 439 encounters (57.4%), and contact with environmental surfaces occurred during 710 encounters (92.6%). The median duration of encounters was 2 minutes (range, <1 to 51 minutes); 33.6% of encounters lasted 1 minute or less, with no significant occupation-associated differences in the median duration of encounters. Adherence with hand hygiene practices was correlated with the duration of the encounter, with overall adherences of 30.0% after encounters of ≤1 minute, 43.4% after encounters of >1 to ≤2 minutes, 51.1% after encounters of >3 to ≤5 minutes, and 64.9% after encounters of >5 minutes (P < .001 by the x2 for trend). In multivariate analyses, longer encounter duration, contact precautions status, patient contact, and nursing occupation were independently associated with adherence to hand hygiene recommendations.Conclusions.In this study, adherence to hand hygiene practices was lowest after brief patient encounters (ie, <2 minutes). Brief encounters accounted for a substantial proportion of all observed encounters, and opportunities for hand contamination occurred during all brief encounters. Therefore, improving adherence after brief encounters may have an important overall impact on the transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and may deserve special emphasis in the design of programs to promote adherence to hand hygiene practices.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccine Intention among Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 835
Author(s):  
Mohammed Noushad ◽  
Mohammad Zakaria Nassani ◽  
Anas B. Alsalhani ◽  
Pradeep Koppolu ◽  
Fayez Hussain Niazi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccine Coverage ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Positive Sign ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Public Health Strategies

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused largescale morbidity and mortality and a tremendous burden on the healthcare system. Healthcare workers (HCWs) require adequate protection to avoid onward transmission and minimize burden on the healthcare system. Moreover, HCWs can also influence the general public into accepting the COVID-19 vaccine. Therefore, determining COVID-19 vaccine intention among HCWs is of paramount importance to plan tailor-made public health strategies to maximize vaccine coverage. A structured questionnaire was administered in February and March 2021 among HCWs in Saudi Arabia using convenience sampling, proceeding the launch of the vaccination campaign. HCWs from all administrative regions of Saudi Arabia were included in the study. In total, 674 out of 1124 HCWs responded and completed the survey (response rate 59.9%). About 65 percent of the HCWs intended to get vaccinated. The intention to vaccinate was significantly higher among HCWs 50 years of age or older, Saudi nationals and those who followed the updates about COVID-19 vaccines (p < 0.05). The high percentage (26 percent) of those who were undecided in getting vaccinated is a positive sign. As the vaccination campaign gathers pace, the attitude is expected to change over time. Emphasis should be on planning healthcare strategies to convince the undecided HCWs into accepting the vaccine in order to achieve the coverage required to achieve herd immunity.

scholarly journals Impact of mandatory online learning module for healthcare workers intending to decline influenza immunization: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne M. Delaney ◽  
Victoria R. Williams ◽  
Nick Tomiczek ◽  
Lawrence Robinson ◽  
Alex Kiss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Learning ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Relative Increase ◽  
Influenza Immunization ◽  
Learning Module ◽  
Mandatory Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
Respiratory Coronavirus

Abstract A policy mandating the completion of an online learning module for healthcare workers intending to decline influenza immunization was associated with a nearly 25% relative increase in immunization and significant reduction in healthcare-associated influenza. In the absence of mandatory vaccination, this model may help to augment severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine efforts.

scholarly journals Modelling the impact of delaying vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 assuming unlimited vaccine supply

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Amaku ◽  
Dimas Tadeu Covas ◽  
Francisco Antonio Bezerra Coutinho ◽  
Raymundo Soares Azevedo ◽  
Eduardo Massad
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
The State ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
The World ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background At the moment we have more than 177 million cases and 3.8 million deaths (as of June 2021) around the world and vaccination represents the only hope to control the pandemic. Imperfections in planning vaccine acquisition and difficulties in implementing distribution among the population, however, have hampered the control of the virus so far. Methods We propose a new mathematical model to estimate the impact of vaccination delay against the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the number of cases and deaths due to the disease in Brazil. We apply the model to Brazil as a whole and to the State of Sao Paulo, the most affected by COVID-19 in Brazil. We simulated the model for the populations of the State of Sao Paulo and Brazil as a whole, varying the scenarios related to vaccine efficacy and compliance from the populations. Results The model projects that, in the absence of vaccination, almost 170 thousand deaths and more than 350 thousand deaths will occur by the end of 2021 for Sao Paulo and Brazil, respectively. If in contrast, Sao Paulo and Brazil had enough vaccine supply and so started a vaccination campaign in January with the maximum vaccination rate, compliance and efficacy, they could have averted more than 112 thousand deaths and 127 thousand deaths, respectively. In addition, for each month of delay the number of deaths increases monotonically in a logarithmic fashion, for both the State of Sao Paulo and Brazil as a whole. Conclusions Our model shows that the current delay in the vaccination schedules that is observed in many countries has serious consequences in terms of mortality by the disease and should serve as an alert to health authorities to speed the process up such that the highest number of people to be immunized is reached in the shortest period of time.

scholarly journals Neutralizing Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Titer and Reported Adverse Effects, in a Sample of Italian Nursing Home Personnel after Two Doses of the BNT162b2 Vaccine Administered Four Weeks Apart

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 652
Author(s):  
Alberto Modenese ◽  
Stefania Paduano ◽  
Annalisa Bargellini ◽  
Rossana Bellucci ◽  
Simona Marchetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Home ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Antibody Titer ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Northern Italy ◽  
High Antibody ◽  
Protective Level ◽  
High Antibody Titer ◽  
Main Factors

Background: The immunization of healthcare workers (HCWs) plays a recognized key role in prevention in the COVID-19 pandemic: in Italy, the vaccination campaign began at the end of December 2020. A better knowledge of the on-field immune response in HCWs, of adverse effects and of the main factors involved is fundamental. Methods: We performed a study on workers at a nursing home in Northern Italy, vaccinated in January–February 2021 with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine four weeks apart, instead of the three weeks provided for in the original manufacturer protocol. One month after the second dose, the serological titer of IgG-neutralizing anti-RBD antibodies of the subunit S1 of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 was determined. The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the subjects and adverse effects of vaccination were collected by questionnaire. Results: In all of the workers, high antibody titer, ranging between 20 and 760 times the minimum protective level were observed. Titers were significantly higher in subjects with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Adverse effects after the vaccine were more frequent after the second dose, but no severe adverse effects were observed. Conclusions: The two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, even if administered four weeks apart, induced high titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing IgG in all the operators included in the study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document