Understanding Diversity of Policies, Functionalities, and Operationalization of Immunization Information Systems and Their Impact: A Targeted Review of the Literature.

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused attention on the use of immunization information systems (IIS) to record and consolidate immunization records from a variety of sources to generate comprehensive patient immunization histories. Operationalization of IIS in the United States is decentralized, and as such, there are over 60 different IIS with wide variations in enabling policies and functionalities. As such, the policies that inform the development and operation of those sub-national IIS exist at the state and sometimes city levels. A targeted literature review was conducted to identify IIS policies and functionalities and assess their impact. The authors identified articles published from 2012 to 2022 that discussed or evaluated IIS policies and functionalities and screened titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. When selected for inclusion, authors extracted IIS policy/functionality characteristics and qualitative or quantitative outcomes of their implementation, where applicable. The search terms yielded 86 articles, of which 39 were included in the analysis. The articles were heterogeneous with respect to study design, interventions, outcomes, and effect measures. Out of the 17 IIS policies and functional components identified in the targeted literature review, the most commonly evaluated were provider-based patient reminder/recall, IIS-based centralized reminder/recall, and clinical decision support. Patient reminder/recall had the most published research and was associated with increased vaccination rates and vaccine knowledge. Despite the lack of quantitative evidence, there is a consensus that immunization data interoperability is critical to supporting IIS data quality, access, and exchange. Significant evidence gaps remain about the effectiveness of IIS functionalities and policies. Future research should evaluate the impact of policies and functionalities to guide improved utilization of IIS, increase national interoperability and standardization, and ultimately improve vaccination coverage and population health.

Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice.

BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear. AIMS: The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers' needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics. METHOD: This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14). RESULTS: The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

Perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK. METHODS: The study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Limited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice.