Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 28 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2142
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2142
Charles M Helms, professor , Philip M Polgreen, assistant professor
1 University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases Division, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States
Correspondence to: C Helms Charles-helms{at}uiowa.edu
Charles Helms and Philip Polgreen believe that mandatory immunisation is necessary to achieve good uptake, but David Isaacs and Julie Leask (doi:10.1136/bmj.a2140) argue that it infringes autonomy and could backfire
Influenza is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Health care associated influenza occurs in acute and long term healthcare facilities, affecting both patients and staff and disrupting delivery of care.1 2 There is evidence that vaccinating long term care healthcare workers reduces mortality among long term care patients and that vaccinating hospital workers decreases the rate of nosocomial influenza in hospitalised patients.3 4 5 6 Moreover, an economic evaluation of immunisation of healthcare workers in the UK found that it is cost saving.7 In addition, further studies show that healthcare worker vaccination reduces absenteeism.8 9 10
Based on available evidence, public health authorities have strongly recommended vaccination of healthcare workers to protect patients and healthcare workers in healthcare settings.11 Despite these recommendations, overall rates of influenza immunisation among healthcare workers worldwide are disappointingly low, 40% or less.1 7 11 12 Such rates suggest that patients and healthcare workers are at increased risk of health care associated influenza. This situation poses a serious, recurring threat to the safety of patients and to the delivery of health services during influenza outbreaks. Recently, recommendations and standards for immunising healthcare workers against influenza have been re-examined, re-emphasised, and strengthened. For example, public health and health industry advisory bodies in the US, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Quality Forum, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health-Care Organizations have all sent a clear message that influenza immunisation is important and that rates need to be increased.13 14 15
This consensus should encourage and facilitate innovative efforts to improve the performance of healthcare facilities and workers. Hopefully, use of evidence based interventions to increase immunisation rates—such as offering free vaccine, staff education, sending reminders, and improving access for staff at the job site11 13 16—will be increased. Thus far, implementation of these evidence based interventions has been encouraged, but not required.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America and others recently suggested that voluntary approaches to immunisation have failed and that mandatory influenza immunisation programmes for healthcare workers are needed.17 18 The effective use of mandatory approaches to increase immunisation rates is not without precedent. Examples include the US requirements for children to be immunised before starting school and vaccination of healthcare workers against hepatitis B.
Some countries already have mandatory influenza immunisation programmes for healthcare workers. The province of Ontario, Canada, introduced regulations in 2004 requiring annual influenza immunisation for workers in long term care.19 At least four US states have policies requiring influenza immunisation of workers in nursing homes, hospitals, or both unless the workers have medical, religious, or philosophical reasons for exemption.20
Recently, interest has focused on mandatory programmes coupling a requirement for influenza immunisation and use of a form to document a healthcare workers decision to decline immunisation. Thus far, it seems as if simply requiring healthcare workers to sign a statement is not enough. For example, a recent study examining the effectiveness of refusal statements (without mandatory immunisation) in 22 US hospitals found only modest increases in vaccination rates.21 In contrast, Virginia Mason Medical Center in Washington state made immunisation of healthcare workers compulsory and accepted refusals only from staff with legitimate medical or religious reasons. The vaccination rate in this hospital increased to 98%.22 These two reports suggest that mandatory immunisation may be critical to reach the highest immunisation rates.
Approaches based on voluntary compliance with recommendations for influenza immunisation of healthcare workers have failed in the long term. The addition of mandatory approaches to improve patient safety in this situation is both reasonable and overdue.
Critics of mandating vaccination base their opposition on the ethical principles of liberty, autonomy, choice, and self determination. Although these are important considerations, we believe that the risk of harm to a patient from influenza in the healthcare setting is far greater than the risk of harm to healthcare workers from immunisation. Moreover, in this era when healthcare institutions and healthcare professions publicly acknowledge their responsibility for patient safety, we think that arguments for autonomy of healthcare workers will not be persuasive, especially to patients who every year are harmed by preventable influenza in the healthcare setting. When considering the safety of patients, we believe the greatest societal good would be derived from mandatory influenza immunisation of healthcare workers.
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2142
Competing interests: CMH received a travel grant from Aventis Pasteur. PMP has been a member of the emerging trends in seasonal influenza advisory panel of Roche Laboratories.