Date post: | 21-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | european-centre-for-disease-prevention-and-control |
View: | 264 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Polio vaccination and stool screening of asylum seekers from Syria arriving in German reception centers, 2013/2014
What was implemented?
Nadine ZeitlmannESCAIDE 2014 – Session on Epidemiology and microbiology driving public health policy 07 November 2014
2
• 90% of polio cases asymptomatic shedders• 1 in 200 infections: acute flaccid paralysis (AFP)
Background
Germany 2013•Dramatic increase of Syrian asylum seekers (11% from all applications)•Last endemic polio case: 1990•Polio vaccination routinely recommended for all asylum seekers (AS) in Germany
Syria•July 2013 – January 2014: Cluster of AFP (37 confirmed cases)•Most affected: children <2 yrs. with insufficient vaccination•Reason: vaccination coverage decrease from >90% to 68% (2012)
Source: Aylward, Lancet, Jan 2014
3
In all asylum seeker reception
centers (RC)
RKI Recommendation (1 November 2013)
I. Obtain vaccination documentation from:
• all asylum seekers• staff of RCs
II. Vaccinate if immunization:
• undocumented• incomplete
1. Re-enforce existing routine vaccination recommendation
Vaccination against polio for all asylum seekers
2. Temporary recommendation:
(1 November 2013 - 18 April 2014)
Stool screening of Syrian children <3 yrs of age
4
Aims
1. To what extend did RCs implement recommendations between
1 November 2013 and 31 January 2014 regarding:
• Percentage of AS with vaccination documents• Percentage of AS vaccinated• Percentage of stools submitted for screening• Overall implementation
2. Which factors inhibited or improved the implementation?
3. What can be learned and improved for future recommenations?
5
Methods
04 March 2014 – 21 March 2014: Electronic questionnaire to health managers for 20 RCs in Germany
6
Variables•Number of AS
− arriving in RCs
− with vaccination document
− vaccinated•Number of stool samples•Date of first vaccination•Daily occupancy•Hosting duration•Routine vaccination / stool screening •Obstacles•Self-rating overall implementation •Suggestions
Questionnaire
7
For each RC: Percentage of arrived AS - vaccinated without document - with stools screened
Variables•Number of AS
− arriving in RCs
− with vaccination document
− vaccinated•Number of stool samples•Date of first vaccination•Daily occupancy•Hosting duration•Routine vaccination / stool screening •Obstacles•Self-rating overall implementation •Suggestions
Questionnaire
8
Results
All twenty RCs responded
Overall number of AS in the study period
•Syrians < 3 years of age: 199
•Syrians other age groups: 4604
•AS with other country of origin: 29 034
Characteristics of RCs during the study period:
•Average daily occupancy: 594 AS (Range: 150 – 1900)
•Average hosting duration: 58 days (Range: 2.5 – 330)
9
Results: Vaccination
Vaccination Documents•On average 90% of asylum seekers without vaccination documents
Offer and Implementation•All RCs offered vaccination for Syrians under 3 years of age•15 RCs for Syrians of other age groups•8 RCs for all AS•5 RCs for all AS and staff (as recommended!), no data on implementation
Syrian AS <3 yrs(n=20)
Syrian AS all age groups(n=15)
All AS(n=8)
10
Results: Vaccination
Timeliness
•9 RCs implemented vaccination on day of recommendation or in advance (mean: 1.5 days)
Obstacles
•Main obstacles: – Staff shortages (11 RCs)– Language barriers (7 RCs) and – AS‘ indefinable vaccination status (7 RCs)
•3 RCs: no obstacles when implementing vaccination
11
Results: Stool Screening
Implementation• 19 RCs implemented stool screening Syrians < 3 years of age
− 4 RCs managed to screen 100%
− 5 RCs screened 50-99% of AS
− 4 RCs screened <25% of AS
− 6 RCs missing data
Obstacles• 5 RCs: no obstacles when implementing stool screening
− 4 of them screen stools routinely (e.g. for parasites)
•Main obstacles
− Language barriers (10 RCs)
− Logistical challenges (8 RCs)
12
Overall implementation and Suggestions
Self-rated overall implementation •Very well: 3 RCs•Well: 8 RCs•Not well: 9 RCs•Among small RCs (lower daily occupancy) a higher percentage (73%) rated implementation as well or very well than among larger RCs (27%)
Suggestions•5 RCs suggested multilingual information material for future recommendations
13
Limitations
• Varying completeness of information
• Different stakeholders as survey participants
• Analyses of aggregated data
• No information on AS with incomplete vaccination
• No information on numbers of staff members vaccinated
14
Conclusions
• German RCs implemented and offered polio vaccination and stool screening to a varying extent
• Large RCs reported a poorer overall feasability of recommendations
• RCs experience difficulty when obtaining AS‘ vaccination history and documents
• Staff shortages and language barriers hindered implementation
15
Recommendations
In future recommendations•Tackle RCs‘ language barriers by providing or organizing multilingual information material (in progress!)
•Address need for preparedness for RCs‘ stakeholders to deal with staff shortages!
•Emphasize further, that if no vaccination document and history can be obtained, vaccination should be applied!
Encourage RCs to implement vaccination recommendations routinely and regardless international outbreak situations!