Excerpt

In spring 2010, the Institute of Medicine’s Preparedness Forum organized three workshops to discuss and examine the vaccination campaign. The workshops were held in Raleigh, North Carolina (April 15); Austin, Texas (April 27); and Seattle, Washington (May 11). They were organized by a planning committee that included representatives from relevant federal agencies and state and local public health authorities and associations. The workshops were designed to facilitate a series of conversations focused on the following objectives: Examine innovative efforts used to distribute and administer vaccine and discuss how they may inform future efforts; Examine how jurisdictions and providers interpreted and applied the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (CDC/ACIP) recommendations for use of 2009 H1N1 vaccine; Highlight successful approaches used by jurisdictions to develop and use innovative partnerships with traditional and non-traditional partners, such as community groups and the private sector; and Discuss strategies used to collect, monitor, evaluate, and use data during the 2009 H1N1 vaccination campaigns.

For each area, participants discussed lessons learned and challenges that arose during the vaccination campaigns and identified strategies to address these challenges for future emergency vaccination programs and other medical countermeasures dispensing campaigns.

Contents

• The National Academies
• Workshop Planning Committee
• Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events
• Reviewers
• 1. Introduction
  • Background: Preparing for the Vaccination Campaign
  • Workshop Goals and Objectives
  • About This Summary
• 2. Vaccine Supply
  • Supply and Demand
  • Supply Projections
  • 2009 H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza
  • Opportunities for Improving Planning Related to Vaccine Supply
• 3. Vaccine Distribution
  • Vaccines for Children Program
  • Disbursed State Distribution Models
  • Centralized State Distribution Models
  • Situational Awareness
  • Department of Defense Distribution System
  • Distribution to Tribal Areas
  • Ancillary Supplies
  • Opportunities for Improving Distribution Systems in Future Emergency Vaccination Campaigns
• 4. Implementation of ACIP Recommendations
  • Implementation of the Initial Target Group Recommendations
  • Expanding to the General Public
  • Flexibility and Consistency
  • Vaccine Formulations and Target Groups
  • Opportunities in Using Priority Groups
• 5. Vaccine Administration Methods and Partners
  • Mass Vaccination Clinics
  • School Vaccination Programs
  • Healthcare Providers
  • Pharmacies
  • Health Plans
  • Occupational Health Clinics
  • Opportunities for Improving Vaccine Administration and Enhancing Partners’ Roles in Future Campaigns
• 6. Vaccination Rates in Certain Populations
  • Pregnant Women
  • Healthcare Workers
  • Racial Disparities in Vaccine Uptake
  • Opportunities for Improving Vaccination Rates in Certain Populations
• 7. Data Collection, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Use
  • State and Local Public Health Data Collection Models
  • Data Collection Challenges
  • Opportunities for Improving Data Collection, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Use
• 8. Communications and Media
  • Communication Challenges During the 2009 H1N1 Vaccination Campaign
  • Communication Among Public Health Authorities
  • Communicating with Healthcare Providers
  • Communicating with the Public
  • Media Relations
  • Opportunities for Improving Communications During Future Emergency Vaccination Programs
• 9. Funding and Payment Issues
  • Public Health
  • Healthcare Providers and Pharmacies
  • Health Plans
  • Opportunities for Addressing Funding and Payment Issues
• 10. Research and Planning
  • Research Opportunities
  • Planning Opportunities
• 11. Final Remarks
• Appendixes
  • A References
  • B Workshop Agendas
  • C Workshop Speakers and Registered Attendees

Rapporteurs: Clare Stroud, Lori Nadig, and Bruce M Altevogt

This project was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Contract No. 200-2005-13434 TO #6), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Contract No. HHSP233200800498P), the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institutes of Health (Contract No. N01-OD-4-2139 TO #240), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Contract Nos. HHSP233200900680P and HHSP23320042509X1), the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Contract No. HSFEHQ-08-P-1800), the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Health Affairs (Contract No. HSHQDC-07-C-00097), the Department of the Army (Contract No. W81XWH-08-P-0934), the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DTNH22-10-H-00287), the Department of Veterans Affairs (Contract No. 101-G09041), the Emergency Nurses Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the United Health Foundation.

Suggested citation:

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. The 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination campaign: Summary of a workshop series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.