Dataset Information

Urgent COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Workers via a Quality Improvement Initiative.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant threat to US healthcare workers' mental and physical health. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020. High-risk healthcare workers were determined to be Phase 1a. Goal: Complete the two-dose vaccine series in all interested phase 1a staff immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine was available and distributed to our institution, December 14, 2020.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team involving key stakeholders performed process mapping to develop four key drivers for vaccination success: rapid vaccine procurement, proper storage and handling, well-defined vaccine administration and follow-up plan, and system preparation. We tested interventions using plan-do-study-act cycles. We included employees and providers with direct patient care responsibilities, age 18 years or older, employed at the children's health system, or the affiliated academic medical center. We examined the total number of dose 1 and dose 2 vaccines administered for our primary outcome, and the balancing measure included the percent of wasted vaccines.

Results

Three thousand nine-hundred twenty-one healthcare personnel completed the survey, and 73% reported intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine immediately or at a later time. After 57 clinic days, we vaccinated 83% (n = 5,231) of healthcare personnel at our institution, and 99% completed the two-dose series. Due to surplus vaccines, we vaccinated an additional 1,258 community members with 99% completion of the two-dose series. Vaccine waste was minimal 0.1%.

Conclusion

We describe the development and implementation of a successful COVID-19 employee and community vaccination program.

SUBMITTER: Baumer-Mouradian SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8615323 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The coronavirus pneumonia is still spreading around the world. Much progress has been made in vaccine development, and vaccination will become an inevitable trend in the fight against this pandemic. However, the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination still remains uncertain. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was used in Wen Juan Xing survey platform. All the respondents were divided into healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the key sociodemographic, cognitive, and attitude associations among the samples of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Results: A total of 2,580 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 1,329 healthcare workers and 1,251 non-healthcare workers. This study showed that 76.98% of healthcare workers accepted the COVID-19 vaccine, 18.28% workers were hesitant, and 4.74% workers were resistant. Among the non-healthcare workers, 56.19% workers received the COVID-19 vaccine, 37.57% workers were hesitant, and 6.24% workers were resistant. Among the healthcare workers, compared with vaccine recipients, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.12-2.07); vaccine-resistant individuals were more likely to live in the suburbs (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.44-3.99) with an income of 10,000 RMB or greater (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.03-3.90). Among the non-healthcare workers, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.11); vaccine-resistant individuals were also more likely to be female (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16-3.02) and older than 65 years (AOR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.40-7.62). There are great differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in their cognition and attitude toward vaccines. Conclusions: Our study shows that healthcare workers are more willing to be vaccinated than non-healthcare workers. Current vaccine safety issues continue to be a major factor affecting public acceptance, and to expand vaccine coverage in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate vaccination strategies and immunization programs are essential, especially for non-healthcare workers.

Project description:BackgroundThe devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers.Aims and objectivesTo synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.MethodsThis is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English.Exclusion1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.ResultsThe review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.ConclusionThe review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas.Tweetable abstractTo mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.