Evaluation of a mandatory immunization program to increase and sustain high immunization coverage for healthcare personnel (HCP).

Descriptive study with before-and-after analysis.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Medical center HCP.

A comprehensive mandatory immunization initiative was implemented in 2 phases, starting in July 2014. Key facets of the initiative included a formalized exemption review process, incorporation into institutional quality goals, data feedback, and accountability to support compliance.

Both immunization and overall compliance rates with targeted immunizations increased significantly in the years after the implementation period. The influenza immunization rate increased from 80% the year prior to the initiative to >97% for the 3 subsequent influenza seasons (P < .0001). Mumps, measles and varicella vaccination compliance increased from 94% in January 2014 to >99% by January 2017, rubella vaccination compliance increased from 93% to 99.5%, and hepatitis B vaccination compliance from 95% to 99% (P < .0001 for all comparisons). An associated positive effect on TB testing compliance, which was not included in the mandatory program, was also noted; it increased from 76% to 92% over the same period (P < .0001).

Thoughtful, step-wise implementation of a mandatory immunization program linked to professional accountability can be successful in increasing immunization rates as well as overall compliance with policy requirements to cover all recommended HCP immunizations.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) requires that all faculty and staff receive the seasonal influenza vaccine annually or receive an approved vaccine exemption, either for a medical or deeply held religious or personal belief. We sought to understand the underlying principles behind these exemption requests and their interaction with a multidisciplinary exemption review process.

All of the personal and religious exemption requests at VUMC for 3 consecutive influenza seasons from 2015 to 2018 were analyzed, categorizing these requests by 1 of 12 standardized employee categories and 1 of 18 unique reasons for vaccine exemption.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Healthcare personnel (HCP).

Among the 3 influenza seasons, 1.1%–2.1% of all VUMC HCP requested religious or personal exemption from vaccination. The frequency of religious and personal exemption approval increased annually from 296 of 452 (65.5%) to 196 of 248 (80.2%) to 283 of 323 (87.6%) over the 3 seasons, representing a statistically significant increase each year. Of the 5 most common reasons against vaccination, 4 were explicitly religious in nature; the most common reason was that the “body is a temple or sacred.” Nonclinical staff submitted the most religious and personal exemption requests of any job category, submitting approximately one-third of all requests every year.

These results demonstrate how detailed the personal or religious convictions behind vaccine avoidance can be among HCP and how vaccine avoidance stems from much more than simple misinformation regarding vaccination. The intersection between misinformation and personal or religious beliefs provides a unique opportunity to address HCP opinions toward vaccination in an exemption and appeals process like the one described here.

To determine whether increases in contact isolation precautions are associated with decreased adherence to isolation practices among healthcare workers (HCWs).

Prospective cohort study from February 2009 to October 2009.

Eleven teaching hospitals.

HCWs.

One thousand thirteen observations conducted on HCWs. Additional data included the number of persons in isolation, types of HCWs, and hospital-specific contact precaution practices. Main outcome measures included compliance with individual components of contact isolation precautions (hand hygiene before and after patient encounter, donning of gown and glove upon entering a patient room, and doffing upon exiting) and overall compliance (all 5 measures together) during varying burdens of isolation.

Compliance with hand hygiene was as follows: prior to donning gowns/gloves, 37.2%; gowning, 74.3%; gloving, 80.1%; doffing of gowns/gloves, 80.1%; after gown/glove removal, 61%. Compliance with all components was 28.9%. As the burden of isolation increased (20% or less to greater than 60%), a decrease in compliance with hand hygiene (43.6%—4.9%) and with all 5 components (31.5%—6.5%) was observed. In multivariable analysis, there was an increase in noncompliance with all 5 components of the contact isolation precautions bundle (odds ratio [OR], 6.6 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-37.44]; P = .03) and in noncompliance with hand hygiene prior to donning gowns and gloves (OR, 10.1 [95% CI, 1.84—55.54]; P = .008) associated with increasing burden of isolation.

As the proportion of patients in contact isolation increases, compliance with contact isolation precautions decreases. Placing 40% of patients under contact precautions represents a tipping point for noncompliance with contact isolation precautions measures.