Implementing a declination form programme to improve influenza vaccine uptake by staff in Department of Veterans Affairs spinal cord injury centres: a pilot study

• Published in: The Journal of hospital infection Vol. 91; no. 2; pp. 158 - 165
• Main Authors: Hill, J.N, Smith, B.M, Evans, C.T, Anaya, H, Goldstein, B, LaVela, S.L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2015
• Subjects: Behavior Therapy; Cross Infection - prevention & control; Disease Transmission, Infectious - prevention & control; Female; Health Personnel; Healthcare workers; Hospitals, Veterans; Humans; Implementation strategies; Infectious Disease; Influenza vaccination; Influenza Vaccines - administration & dosage; Influenza, Human - prevention & control; Interviews as Topic; Local consensus process; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Pilot Projects; Spinal Cord Injuries - therapy; Spinal cord injury; Vaccination - utilization; Veterans; Local consensus process; Implementation strategies; Healthcare workers; Influenza vaccination; Spinal cord injury; Veterans
• ISSN: 0195-6701; 1532-2939
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.05.015

Summary Background Individuals with spinal cord injuries and disorders are at high risk for respiratory and influenza-related complications after developing influenza. These individuals often have frequent contact with the healthcare system. Vaccination rates in healthcare workers at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spinal cord injury (SCI) centres have been approximately 50% for several years. Efforts are needed to increase vaccination uptake among SCI HCWs. Declination form programmes (DFPs) in combination with other strategies have resulted in significant increases in influenza vaccination uptake in HCWs. Aim Use of external and internal facilitation including local teams and consensus processes to pilot a DFP in two VA SCI centres and evaluate factors influencing implementation. Methods Implementation meetings and a consensus-building process with leadership and implementation team members were conducted, along with semi-structured post-implementation interviews with members of each implementation team ( N  = 7). Findings The DFP was well accepted and easy to use. Leadership was a key facilitator for DFP implementation. Barriers included difficulty communicating with HCWs working during early/late shifts. Participation was 100% at Site 1 and 48% at Site 2. Conclusion Use of local teams and consensus to identify strategies to implement a DFP is feasible and effective for achieving moderate-to-high levels of participation in the programme.