Search

Flu vaccination is recommended among healthcare workers (HCWs). The low vaccination coverage registered in our hospital among HCWs called for new engaging approaches to improve flu vaccination coverage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different strategies implemented during the last four years (2015–2019). A quasi-experimental study was conducted, involving almost 4000 HCWs each year. Starting from the 2015–2016 campaign, new evidence-based strategies were progressively implemented. At the end of each campaign, an evaluation of the vaccination coverage rate reached was performed. Moreover, during the last three campaigns, differences in coverage among job category, wards involved or not in on-site vaccination (OSV) intervention, age classes and gender were analyzed. An increasing flu vaccination coverage rate was registered, from 6% in 2015–2016 to almost 22% at the end of 2018–2019. The overall number of vaccinated HCWs increased, especially at younger ages. OSV strategy always leads to better results, and physicians always show a higher vaccination coverage than nurses and other HCWs. The implemented strategies were effective in achieving higher flu vaccination coverage among HCWs in our hospital and therefore can be considered valuable examples of good prevention practices in hospital settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare workers are at the forefront against COVID-19, worldwide. Since Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS was enlisted as a COVID-19 hospital, the healthcare workers deployed to COVID-19 wards were separated from those with limited/no exposure, whereas the administrative staff were designated to work from home. Between 4 June and 3 July 2020, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies among the employees of the FPG using point-of-care (POC) and venous blood tests. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs as the diagnostic gold standard. The participants enrolled amounted to 4777. Seroprevalence was 3.66% using the POC test and 1.19% using the venous blood test, with a significant difference ( p < 0.05). The POC test sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 63.64% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.20% to 65.04%) and 96.64% (95% CI: 96.05% to 97.13%), while those of the venous blood test were, respectively, 78.79% (95% CI: 77.58% to 79.94%) and 99.36% (95% CI: 99.07% to 99.55%). Among the low-risk populations, the POC test's predictive values were 58.33% (positive) and 98.23% (negative), whereas those of the venous blood test were 92.86% (positive) and 98.53% (negative). According to our study, these serological tests cannot be a valid alternative to diagnose COVID-19 infection in progress.