1 / 31

Minnesota Healthcare Setting Employee Influenza Vaccination Program Survey

Minnesota Healthcare Setting Employee Influenza Vaccination Program Survey. Denise Dunn, RN, MPH Adult/Adolescent Immunization Coordinator Minnesota Department of Health August 2009. Overview. Survey background Survey methods Initial findings Dissemination of results. Survey background.

hartzell
Download Presentation

Minnesota Healthcare Setting Employee Influenza Vaccination Program Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minnesota Healthcare Setting Employee Influenza Vaccination Program Survey Denise Dunn, RN, MPH Adult/Adolescent Immunization Coordinator Minnesota Department of Health August 2009

  2. Overview • Survey background • Survey methods • Initial findings • Dissemination of results

  3. Survey background • National healthcare worker vaccination rate is about 45%* • Interest in what Minnesota’s rate might be • Strong backing from MIPAC Influenza Subgroup to survey MN • MDH decides to survey 2008-09 season *National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2006-07

  4. Survey background • Decision to do more than just a declination survey • Interest in obtaining Minnesota-specific information about employee influenza vaccination programs and rates in health care settings

  5. Purpose of survey • To collect: • Minnesota-specific employee influenza vaccination rates in health care settings to give us a benchmark to mark progress; • Information on various employee influenza vaccination program activities used by organizations; • Data on the perceived barriers to vaccination; and • Baseline information on utilization/usefulness of the Minnesota Immunization Information Connection (MIIC), our statewide immunization registry, for tracking employee influenza vaccinations.

  6. Coverage & sampling • Survey population = all hospitals and long-term care facilities in Minnesota • Surveyed all hospitals (N=145) and a random sample of long-care facilities (N=135) • Total facilities surveyed = 280 • Facility lists obtained from Compliance Monitoring Division (MDH)

  7. Survey methods • Online survey available mid-April through May 2009 • Paper version was available, but no requests for it • Pre-letter to administrators, followed by instructional letter to infection control staff (if known) or again to administrators, by default • ICP email list used, as available

  8. Survey methods • Reminders sent either via mail or email • Response rate = 62% • Excluded 6 incomplete surveys • Total responses; N = 173 • Response deadlines were extended • Last 2 weeks of original timeframe were extremely busy for hospitals with H1N1 • Analysis is still underway

  9. Survey findings • Overall employee influenza vaccination rate (all facilities combined) = 70.1%

  10. Survey findings • Influenza vaccination rates by facility type: • Hospital = 78% • LTC = 63% • Both = 73% • Other = 77%

  11. Survey findings • 100% of healthcare facilities surveyed provided influenza vaccination to all employees during the 2008-09 season

  12. Survey findings • In addition to employees, who was included in your vaccination program? • Volunteers 61% • Licensed independent contractors 42% • Students 31% • Community providers 11% • Vendors 6%

  13. Survey findings • 99% of facilities provided vaccination onsite • 86% provided vaccination during all work shifts • 99% provided vaccination at no cost

  14. Vaccination delivery methods • Vaccination clinics/fairs 73% • Peer-vaccinators 60% • Mobile carts 50% • Coordination with other programs 39% • Occupational health site 28% • Using congregating areas 25% • Flu captains/teams 12%

  15. Promotional activities • Respondents used the following promotional activities to enhance vaccination programs: • Reminders 91% • Promotional campaign 70% • Strong support by admin 49% • One on one counseling 42% • Incentives 38% • Rates reviewed by admin 35% • Rates shared within facility 32% • Kick off event 21% • Influenza champions 12%

  16. Educational activities • 92% of facilities provide education as part of their employee vaccination program • Of those facilities that provided education: • In 34%, education was required • In 66%, education was not required

  17. Survey findings • Respondents track employee influenza vaccinations using: • Paper forms 88% • Other computer application 23% • MIIC 10% • Other, included consent forms, checklists, sign up sheets, employee health records

  18. Survey findings • Barriers cited to using MIIC to track employee vaccinations: • Lack of time for entering data 26% • Prefer own system 25% • Lack of awareness about MIIC benefits 21% • Lack of trained personnel 13% • General difficulty in use 4% • Privacy concerns 2%

  19. Declination • Did your organization use a declination form as part of its employee influenza vaccination program during the 2008-09 season? • Yes 70% • No 30%

  20. Declination • For those who used declinations forms, was it mandatory for employees to return the form? • Yes 72.7% • No 27.3%

  21. Declination • Reasons given for not using declination forms: • Lack of time or personnel resources 25% • Not convinced of value 21% • Leadership does not endorse 17% • Union barriers 6% • Other included: never used before, unaware of form, employee rights, tried with little effect

  22. Declination • Will your organization use a declination process next influenza season? • Yes 67% • No 5% • Unknown 28%

  23. Findings • Vaccination rate comparison: • Used declination form = 75% • No declination form = 60%

  24. Declination reasons • Fear of adverse events 9% • Fear of getting sick from vaccine 6% • Fear of injections 5% • Medical contraindications 3% *average % reported, of those facilities that use declination forms

  25. Initial findings • Program characteristics of facilities with high vaccination rates (close to or >90%): • Provide flu vaccine at no cost to employee • Provide vaccination during all work shifts • Expand vaccine offerings to “other” workers • Use reminder methods

  26. Initial findings • Program characteristics of facilities with high vaccination rates (close to or >90%): • Most had a strongly motivated administrator leading the vaccination drive • Most held kick-off events and campaigns • Almost all provide education on influenza and flu vaccine to staff • Most used declination forms and required their return

  27. Initial findings • Program characteristics of facilities with high vaccination rates (close to or >90%): • All evaluate influenza vaccination rates annually • All set influenza vaccination rate goals annually • Almost all track reasons why employees choose not to participate • All track the previous season’s data

  28. Data analysis continues • Still analyzing data • Continue analyzing specific activities associated with high-rate facilities • Compare vaccination rates of facilities that use declination forms to those that do not • Look at nonresponders

  29. Dissemination of results • Internal MDH stakeholders • MIPAC Influenza Subgroup • CDC site visit • “Brown bag” for additional MDH employees • Fact sheet with summary of results / web • MN Influenza Vaccination Plan 2009-10 • State, regional, and/or national conferences

  30. What’s next • Amend sample declination form • Finish analysis and disseminate results • Plan to repeat survey next year • Possibly add sampling of clinics • H1N1 vaccine campaign may complicate next year’s survey

  31. Questions/Discussion • Denise Dunn: • Denise.Dunn@state.mn.us • 651-201-5560

More Related