• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Using a validated health promotion tool to improve patient safety and increase health care personnel influenza vaccination rates

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Am J Infect Control. 2013 Feb 7. pii: S0196-6553(12)01338-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.09.027. [Epub ahead of print]
Using a validated health promotion tool to improve patient safety and increase health care personnel influenza vaccination rates.
Real K, Kim S, Conigliaro J.
Source

Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Electronic address: kevin.real@uky.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

This study employed the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to determine whether health care personnel (HCP) influenza-related risk perceptions and efficacy beliefs could be used to segment individuals into meaningful groups related to vaccination uptake, absenteeism, and patient safety beliefs.
METHODS:

After pilot interviews, a questionnaire was administered to 318 hospital-based HCP (80%) and nonclinical support staff (20%) in Lexington, KY, in 2011. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 29 respondents.
RESULTS:

Cluster analysis was used to create 4 groups that correspond to the RPA framework: responsive (high risk, strong efficacy), avoidance (high risk, weak efficacy), proactive (low risk, strong efficacy), and indifference (low risk, weak efficacy). A significant association was found between membership in 1 or more of the 4 RPA groups and the 3 study variables of interest: influenza vaccination uptake (F(7,299) = 2.51, P < .05), influenza-related absenteeism (F(7,269) = 3.6, P < .001), and perceptions of patient safety climate (F(7,304) = 6.21, P < .001). A subset of respondents indicated the principal reasons for not getting vaccinated were "had one before and got sick anyway," "concerned about vaccine safety," and "no convenient time." In follow-up interviews, HCP indicated that employee vaccinations were altruistic, increased herd immunity, and important for patient safety.
CONCLUSION:

The RPA framework is a valid health promotion tool for improving patient safety, targeting specific groups for interventions, and improving HCP influenza vaccination rates.

Copyright ? 2013 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
23394861
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23394861
 
Back
Top Bottom