Dutch healthcare professionals' opinion on vaccination and education to prevent infections in immunocompromised patients: A mixed-method study with recommendations for daily practice

Healthcare professionals' experiences of interprofessional collaboration in patient education: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study explores interprofessional collaboration amongst healthcare professionals in patient education.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. A search in seven databases was conducted from 2011 to 2022 and screened against the inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal was done independently by two reviewers. Studies were extracted and synthesised using the data-based convergent synthesis design.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. Five themes on factors affecting interprofessional collaboration in patient education emerged: 1) role clarification, 2) communication infrastructure, 3) shared space for collaboration, 4) interprofessional trust, and 5) organisational support.

CONCLUSION

Findings highlighted the importance of developing trustful relationships within the multidisciplinary team in delivering patient education. Channels for additional infrastructural support, guidelines and training in patient education delivery is required. Future research could explore patients' perspectives on how their learning needs in patient education may be optimised through a multidisciplinary approach.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare leaders could promote shared goals within the team by facilitating a common space and time for interprofessional team rounding, and by developing shared patient education resources and documentation processes. Interprofessional education focusing on the delivery of team-based patient education could be implemented to foster understanding of the interdependent role of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals.

Vaccination process of immunocompromised patients in the Netherlands: Current challenges and potential solutions

Introduction

Immunocompromised patients (ICP) have an increased risk for infectious diseases. Vaccines could help reduce this risk. However, ICP do not always receive or are reimbursed for the specific vaccinations on which they are dependent in the Netherlands. This research aims to gain insights into the current challenges in the vaccination process of ICP in the Netherlands. Moreover, it aims to explore potential solutions for these challenges and the ideal vaccination process.

Methods

Twelve semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders were conducted. Partly based on the challenges found by the Council for Health and Society (RVS) and the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN) an interview guide was developed.

Results

Several newly emerged challenges were identified: fair reimbursement for the efforts of stakeholders; circular reasoning of vaccine reimbursement and guidelines; suboptimal translation from guidelines to practice and no smooth-running infrastructure. Most challenges corresponded with those stated by the RVS and ZIN. Affordability and knowledge deficit in healthcare providers and patients were the most important challenges. Rarely the same solutions were mentioned, and no ideal vaccination process emerged.

Conclusions

The various challenges in the vaccination process of ICP in the Netherlands implies the difficulty to solve the problem. It is recommended to focus on solving the most important challenges. A potential solution is to adjust the GVS registration process to make it easier for the pharmaceutical industry to apply for reimbursement towards various high-risk groups. Additionally, vaccination should have a more prominent role in the education of healthcare providers. Furthermore, stakeholders need to cooperate more to solve the reimbursement and guidelines issue.

Dutch Healthcare Professionals' Opinion on the Allocation of Responsibilities concerning Prescribing and Administering Medically Indicated Vaccines to Immunocompromised Patients

BACKGROUND

Specific vaccines are indicated for immunocompromised patients (ICPs) due to their vulnerability to infections. Recommendation of these vaccines by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a crucial facilitator for vaccine uptake. Unfortunately, the responsibilities to recommend and administer these vaccines are not clearly allocated among HCPs involved in the care of adult ICPs. We aimed to evaluate HCPs' opinions on directorship and their role in facilitating the uptake of medically indicated vaccines as a basis to improve vaccination practices.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed among in-hospital medical specialists (MSs), general practitioners (GPs), and public health specialists (PHSs) in the Netherlands to assess their opinion on directorship and the implementation of vaccination care. Additionally, perceived barriers, facilitators, and possible solutions to improve vaccine uptake were investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 306 HCPs completed the survey. HCPs almost unanimously (98%) reported that according to them, the primary treating physician is responsible for recommending medically indicated vaccines. Administering these vaccines was seen as a more shared responsibility. The most important barriers experienced by HCPs in recommending and administering were reimbursement problems, a lack of a national vaccination registration system, insufficient collaboration among HCPs, and logistical problems. MSs, GPs and PHSs all mentioned the same three solutions as important strategies to improve vaccination practices, i.e., reimbursement of vaccines, reliable and easily accessible registration of received vaccines, and arrangements for collaboration among the different HCPs that are involved in care.

CONCLUSION

The improvement in vaccination practices in ICPs should focus on better collaboration among MSs, GPs, and PHSs, who should know each other's expertise; clear agreement on responsibility; reimbursement for vaccines; and the availability of clear registration of vaccination history.

Factors influencing healthcare professionals' confidence in vaccination in Europe: a literature review

Health-care professionals (HCPs) have a fundamental role in vaccination, their own beliefs and attitudes affecting both their uptake and recommendation of vaccines. This literature review (n = 89) summarises evidence on HCPs’ perceptions of the risks and benefits of vaccination, trust, and perceptions of mandatory vaccination in Europe. HCPs across studies believed that vaccination is important to protect themselves and their patients. However, beliefs that some diseases such as influenza are less risky were reported by some HCPs as a reason for not getting vaccinated. Concerns about both short- and long-term side effects were identified among HCPs in most studies, such as those affecting the immune or neurological system. Mistrust toward health authorities and pharmaceutical industry was reported in some studies. The question of mandatory vaccination revealed mixed opinions, with some favoring self-determination and others viewing vaccination as a duty. This review highlights key factors influencing HCPs’ confidence in vaccination in Europe.