National Outbreak of Acanthamoeba Keratitis Associated with Use of a Contact Lens Solution, United States

Premarket standardized testing for Acanthamoeba spp. is warranted

Evaluating a Standardized Measure of Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination

BackgroundMethods of measuring influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) vary substantially, as do the groups of HCP that are included in any given set of measurements. Thus, comparison of vaccination rates across healthcare facilities is difficult.PurposeThe goal of the study was to determine the feasibility of implementing a standardized measure for reporting HCP influenza vaccination data in various types of healthcare facilities.MethodsA total of 318 facilities recruited in four U.S. jurisdictions agreed to participate in the evaluation, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, dialysis clinics, ambulatory surgery centers, and physician practices. HCP in participating facilities were categorized as employees, credentialed non-employees, or other non-employees using standard definitions. Data were gathered using cross-sectional web-based surveys completed at three intervals between October 2010 and May 2011; data were analyzed in February 2012.Results234 facilities (74%) completed all three surveys. Most facilities could report on-site employee vaccination; almost one third could not provide complete data on HCP vaccinated outside the facility, contraindications, or declinations, primarily due to missing non-employee data. Inability to determine vaccination status of credentialed and other non-employees was cited as a major barrier to measure implementation by 24% and 27% of respondents, respectively.ConclusionsUsing the measure to report employee vaccination status was feasible for most facilities; tracking non-employee HCP was more challenging. Based on evaluation findings, the measure was revised to limit the types of non-employees included. Although the revised measure is less comprehensive, it is more likely to produce valid vaccination coverage estimates. Use of this standardized measure can inform quality improvement efforts and facilitate comparison of HCP influenza vaccination among facilities

Evaluating a Standardized Measure of Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination

BACKGROUND: Methods of measuring influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) vary substantially, including which groups of HCP are included in measurements. Thus, comparison of vaccination rates across healthcare facilities is difficult. PURPOSE: The goal of the study was to determine the feasibility of implementing a standardized measure for reporting HCP influenza vaccination data in various types of healthcare facilities. METHODS: A total of 318 facilities recruited in four U.S. jurisdictions agreed to participate in the evaluation, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, dialysis clinics, ambulatory surgery centers, and physician practices. HCP in participating facilities were categorized as employees, credentialed non-employees, or other non-employees using standard definitions. Data were gathered using cross-sectional web-based surveys completed at three intervals between October 2010 and May 2011 and analyzed in February 2012. RESULTS: 234 facilities (74%) completed all three surveys. Most facilities could report on-site employee vaccination; almost one third could not provide complete data on HCP vaccinated outside the facility, contraindications, or declinations, primarily due to missing non-employee data. Inability to determine vaccination status of credentialed and other non-employees was cited as a major barrier to measure implementation by 24% and 27% of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using the measure to report employee vaccination status was feasible for most facilities; tracking non-employee HCP was more challenging. Based on evaluation findings, the measure was revised to limit the types of non-employees included. Although the revised measure is less comprehensive, it is more likely to produce valid vaccination coverage estimates. Use of this standardized measure can inform quality improvement efforts and facilitate comparison of HCP influenza vaccination among facilities

Uptake of meningococcal conjugate vaccine among adolescents in large managed care organizations, United States, 2005: Demand, supply and seasonality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In February 2005, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended the new meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4) for routine use among 11- to 12-year-olds (at the preadolescent health-care visit), 14- to 15-year-olds (before high-school entry), and groups at increased risk. Vaccine distribution started in March; however, in July, the manufacturer reported inability to meet demand and widespread MCV4 shortages were reported. Our objectives were to determine early uptake patterns among target (11-12 and 14-15 year olds) and non-target (13- plus 16-year-olds) age groups. A post hoc analysis was conducted to compare seasonal uptake patterns of MCV4 with polysaccharide meningococcal (MPSV4) and tetanus diphtheria (Td) vaccines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed data for adolescents 11-16 years from five managed care organizations participating in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). For MCV4, we estimated monthly and cumulative coverage during 2005 and calculated risk ratios. For MPSV4 and Td, we combined 2003 and 2004 data and compared their seasonal uptake patterns with MCV4.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Coverage for MCV4 during 2005 among the 623,889 11-16 years olds was 10%. Coverage for 11-12 and 14-15 year olds was 12% and 11%, respectively, compared with 8% for 13- plus 16-year-olds (<it>p </it>< 0.001). Of the 64,272 MCV4 doses administered from March-December 2005, 73% were administered June-August. Fifty-nine percent of all MPSV4 doses and 38% of all Td doses were administered during June-August.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A surge in vaccine uptake between June and August was observed among adolescents for MCV4, MPSV4 and Td vaccines. The increase in summer-time vaccinations and vaccination of non-targeted adolescents coupled with supply limitations likely contributed to the reported shortages of MCV4 in 2005.</p