Mandatory Immunization of Health Care Providers

Gemmill, Ian

doi:10.1007/bf03405321

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…18 This type of policy is now quite common, and mandatory vaccination for HCWs, with a provision for declining vaccination on the basis of religious or medical reasons, is increasingly promoted. 19,20 Fifteen US states have regulations regarding vaccination of health workers in long-term care facilities, three states require that health care facilities offer influenza vaccination to staff, and three states require that HCWs either receive influenza vaccination or indicate a religious, medical or philosophical reason for not being vaccinated. 21 This article describes the results of a research study in which focus group sessions were held in long-term, acute and community care settings in BC to probe the barriers and facilitators to health care workers being vaccinated against influenza.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccination of Health Care Workers for Influenza: Promote Safety Culture, Not Coercion

Yassi

Lockhart

Buxton

et al. 2010

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, all health care facilities must have a written staff policy on influenza immunization that includes notice that non-immunized staff can be excluded from work without pay during an influenza outbreak in the facility. In light of this policy, our objectives were to explore the views of BC health care workers (HCWs) regarding how best to promote vaccine uptake.Methods: Long-term care, and acute and community health sites in three of six health regions were divided into thirds, according to their previous season's vaccine uptake rates, and the upper and lower thirds targeted. Ten focus groups were held. NVivo software (QSR International) and a separate editing style were used for analysis. Results:Four dominant themes emerged: knowledge, communication, perceived punitive nature of workplace policy, and safety climate. HCWs across all focus groups noted that influenza campaign communications should include reinforcement of basic infection control, workplace health and healthy lifestyle choices that affect overall health. HCWs indicated that they wanted a workplace policy that is easy to understand, respectful of individual choice and not punitive. Conclusions:Our findings highlight the importance of comprehensive approaches, a message that has not appeared as strongly in previous literature. Focus group participants pointed out the importance of health and safety at work generally and felt that creating a healthy workplace culture is necessary to promoting vaccine uptake. Future vaccine promotion initiatives should be integrated into facility-wide workplace health campaigns and care taken to ensure that vaccination campaigns do not appear coercive to HCWs.La traduction du résumé se trouve à la fin de l'article.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaccination of Health Care Workers for Influenza: Promote Safety Culture, Not Coercion

Yassi

Lockhart

Buxton

et al. 2010

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consider, for example, arguments emphasizing the "duty of care." [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Such arguments frame the debate in terms of communal good over individual rights: an explicit valuing of security over liberty. "Duty of care" suggests professional responsibility, which in public health has wider connotations than for personal care.…”

Section: Goals and Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

What’s Public? What’s Private?

Mah

2008

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy decisions about public health services differ from those for personal health services. Both require trade-offs between such policy goals as liberty, security, efficiency, and equity. In public health, however, decisions about who will approve, pay for, and deliver services are often accompanied by decisions on when and how to compel individual behaviour. Policy becomes complex because different stakeholders interpret evidence differently: stakeholders may assign different weights to policy goals and may even define the same goals differently. In the debate over mandatory annual influenza vaccination for health care workers, for example, proponents as well as opponents of mandatory vaccination may convey arguments in security terms. Those in favour of mandatory vaccination emphasize subclinical infections and duty of care (public security) while those opposed emphasize risk of adverse events (personal security). Proponents assert less worker absenteeism (efficiency) while opponents stress coercion and alternate personal infection control measures (liberty and individual rights/responsibilities). Consequently, stakeholders talk past each other. Determining the place of mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers thus demands reconciling policy trade-offs and clarifying the underlying disputes hidden in the language of the policy debate.

show abstract