Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Scholarly Works (2 results)

  • Article
  • Peer Reviewed
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health, Volume 23, Issue 4 (2022)

Introduction: Unvaccinated emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are at increased risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and potentially transmitting the virus to their families, coworkers, and patients. Effective vaccines for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus exist; however, vaccination rates among EMS professionals remain largely unknown. Consequently, we sought to document vaccination rates of EMS professionals and identify predictors of vaccination uptake.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of North Carolina EMS professionals after the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available. The survey assessed vaccination status as well as beliefs regarding COVID-19 illness and vaccine effectiveness. Prediction of vaccine uptake was modeled using logistic regression.

Results: A total of 860 EMS professionals completed the survey, of whom 74.7% reported receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Most respondents believed that COVID-19 is a serious threat to the population, that they are personally at higher risk of infection, that vaccine side effects are outweighed by illness prevention, and the vaccine is safe and effective. Despite this, only 18.7% supported mandatory vaccination for EMS professionals. Statistically significant differences were observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, recall of employer vaccine recommendation, perceived risk of infection, degree of threat to the population, and trust in government to take actions to limit the spread of disease. Unvaccinated respondents cited reasons such as belief in personal health and natural immunity as protectors against infection, concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, inadequate vaccine knowledge, and lack of an employer mandate for declining the vaccine. Predictors of vaccination included belief in vaccine safety (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, P=<0.001) and effectiveness (OR 4.6, P=<0.001); importance of vaccination to protect patients (OR 15.5, P=<0.001); perceived personal risk of infection (OR 1.8, P=0.04); previous receipt of influenza vaccine (OR 2.5, P=0.003); and sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision about vaccination (OR 2.4,  P=0.024).

Conclusion: In this survey of EMS professionals, over a quarter remained unvaccinated for COVID-19. Given the identified predictors of vaccine acceptance, EMS systems should focus on countering misinformation through employee educational campaigns as well as on developing policies regarding workforce immunization requirements.

    Cover page: Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccination Among EMS PersonnelCreative Commons 'BY' version 4.0 license
    • Article
    • Peer Reviewed
    UC Davis Previously Published Works (2020)
    Burn care remains among the most complex of the time-sensitive treatment interventions in medicine today. An enormous quantity of specialized resources are required to support the critical and complex modalities needed to meet the conventional standard of care for each patient with a critical burn injury. Because of these dependencies, a sudden surge of patients with critical burn injuries requiring immediate and prolonged care following a burn mass casualty incident (BMCI) will place immense stress on healthcare system assets, including supplies, space, and an experienced workforce (staff). Therefore, careful planning to maximize the efficient mobilization and rational use of burn care resources is essential to limit morbidity and mortality following a BMCI. The U.S. burn care profession is represented by the American Burn Association (ABA). This paper has been written by clinical experts and led by the ABA to provide further clarity regarding the capacity of the American healthcare system to absorb a surge of burn-injured patients. Furthermore, this paper intends to offer responders and clinicians evidence-based tools to guide their response and care efforts to maximize burn care capabilities based on realistic assumptions when confronted with a BMCI. This effort also aims to align recommendations in part with those of the Committee on Crisis Standards of Care for the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences. Their publication guided the work in this report, identified here as "conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care." This paper also includes an update to the burn Triage Tables- Seriously Resource-Strained Situations (v.2).
      Cover page: Actionable, Revised (v.3), and Amplified American Burn Association Triage Tables for Mass Casualties: A Civilian Defense Guideline.
      Top