Doctors condemn Hunt’s plan to link emergency department funding to staff flu vaccination rates
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5639 (Published 17 September 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f5639
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Further to the issue highlighted in this article, as discussed in the BMJ last year(1), the policy simply isn’t supported by evidence-based medicine. The disproportionate level of financial reward is related to an unknown, yet probable negligible clinical impact(2) and appears to be more related to government publicity than patient care.
The other obvious discrepancy in the proposal is that although the hospital trusts will receive the needed money, it is the individual members of staff who are required to become vaccinated. In the diverse hospital workforce, it seems unlikely a hospitals financial status will do much to incentivise vaccination. Ultimately, the result would appear to be trusts in dire need of additional funding, (often with shorter term staff) will again be punished rather than given the financial aid required.
1. Lenzer J. Belief not science is behind flu jab promotion, new report says. BMJ 2012;345:e7856
2.Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Rivetti D. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2006;(3):CD005187.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Depending upon the precise formula used, and the rules accompanying the distribution of further funding, the link between staff vaccination rates and funding may be seen as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst restrictions on the freedom of Conscience and Religion (Article 9) and Expression (Article 10) are permitted, in matters of public health, they must be proportionate. This step is not. That a lack of funding may place a department at risk is further undue pressure on individuals.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Doctors condemn Hunt’s plan to link emergency department funding to staff flu vaccination rates
It seems a sledge hammer approach? It is difficult to find good evidence of the effectiveness of the 'flu immunisation, but this paper form the NEJM (N Engl J Med 2010;363:2416-23) seems to suggest that we need to immunise about 400 people to stop one of them getting the 'flu.
Do the politicians have any idea of the sort of numbers they are working with? They never seem to with their crazy ideas! Why are they so poorly informed? Are they surrounded by sycophants? Just arrogant?
Competing interests: No competing interests