Among an employer’s various duties to ensure workers’ wellbeing, healthcare is obviously a major consideration.
However, employees still remain relatively helpless in the area of disease prevention. HR’s role in preventive immunisation has been discussed more frequently with the advent of the H1N1 pandemic, but before then, the idea of encouraging and funding staff immunisations was curious at best.
Still, the swine flu outbreak has changed all of that. The number of cases has surged in Singapore and news reports have compared it to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2003. Then, HR departments in many organisations were forced to deal with a range of related employee challenges, including absenteeism, lower productivity and output, increased consultations and medical fees, hospitalisations, and in a few cases, death.
Most of us have experienced the painful but necessary injections to ward off infections and diseases. But few employees have had to revisit the immunisation process in their working lives. Is preventive immunisation an effective answer to some of HR’s employee health concerns?
“Preventive immunisations are highly effective in reducing the incidence of many common diseases,” says Dr Derek Koh, Head, Lifestyle Centre, Thomson Medical Centre. He adds that many of these diseases are associated with disabilities and even death. Employers concerned about their workers’ long-term quality-of-life should bear in mind the circumstances in which viruses are spread. Employees share very close quarters with one another for long periods of time. Although it is unlikely that any workplace is rampant with diseases, the office environment is certainly conducive to the spreading of an existing illness, as uncommon as it may be.
Types of illnesses
Preventive immunisations relevant to each individual workplace will depend largely on the nature of work, and the specific environment involved. The profile of workers should also be taken into account, as age and medical history might make some groups more vulnerable to certain illnesses than other demographics. The types of diseases requiring for which immunisations are available are usually infectious, and therefore worth preventing, says Koh.
One example is Hepatitis A. Employers and employees do not consider themselves at risk for the illness which causes infection of the liver but a close working environment lends easily to contagion. Workers can contract this illness through contact with infected individuals, or from consuming contaminated food, drink or water. Workers at an especially high risk are those working in sewage treatment and laboratories.
Hepatitis B is harder to contract, but immunisations are certainly worth the piece of mind for workers in certain industries. Most Singaporeans will have received a vaccination for Hepatitis B when they were babies, but for foreign workers considered at risk, it is highly recommended. The incidence of infection is higher among those with occupational risk factors. Those who work in emergency services, for example, are susceptible because the disease is transmitted through blood and other bodily fluids. Unvaccinated prison staff and mortuary, cremation or embalmment workers also face a higher risk of infection.
Immunising travellers
For organisations that send employees on overseas assignments, there are more reasons to be concerned about contagious diseases. Transmission of typhoid can occur through saliva or the ingestion of contaminated food or water. A single vaccination dose administered two weeks prior to departure will prevent the disease and quell your traveling employee’s concerns. If the employee will be making frequent trips to typhoid zones, a booster dose – required every three years – is recommended.
Combined vaccinations also exist for employees who are wary of the needle or simply do not want to go through the inconvenience of multiple clinic appointments. One shot can prevent Hepatitis A and B. There is also a combination vaccine for Hepatitis A and Typhoid.
The jab that helps all
Employers whose workers do not fall into any of the above risk categories may want to consider vaccinations for an illness that everyone is susceptible to: the flu. The influenza vaccine has been shown to be highly effective in this region. Health care workers are advised to receive regular shots to protect themselves and their patients from the bug. However, in this case, immunisations should not be limited to those who are more exposed than others at work.
Given the current H1N1 outbreak, a flu shot for every staff member can help in more ways than one. Not only does it reduce absenteeism during the flu season, it can give workers added confidence against the threat of the pandemic.
Benefits and challenges
The benefits of immunisations are widely known. For individuals, they eliminate the chances of contracting illnesses which can be detrimental to their immediate or long-term health. In the workplace, preventive immunisations yield advantages to the organisation’s bottom line. “It has been shown that workers who received preventive immunisations lost substantially fewer days at work,” says Koh.
A reduced work loss translates to higher productivity and morale in the workplace, which creates a more positive working environment on the whole. Medical costs incurred by the company are also kept to a minimum when workers are happier and healthier.
However, the advantages of vaccinations for employees do not necessarily outweigh the HR challenges. Some employees will naturally resist being vaccinated. This can happen for both religious and personal reasons. While complications are extremely rare, vaccinations do come with their own inherent risks. Staff may also express doubts that certain vaccinations will even work. Flu vaccines, for example, are only 70-90% effective. Either way, it’s hard to physically force someone to accept a needle in the shoulder.
For this reason, immunisations which can be kept optional should remain that way for the majority of workers. Employers cannot assume that employees will not get sick after getting a flu jab, as there is still a marginal chance of infection.
Koh says cost and time factors may tempt employers to ignore preventive immunisations. But he also believes that immnunisations for an entire workforce are worth the one-off expenses and time spent. “This would have to be weighed against the cost savings and increased productivity as a result of disease prevention,” he reminds employers.
There are also ways to make an immunisation exercise more cost-effective. Koh says employers are able to make a careful selection of the profile of workers to be immunised as well as the types of immunisations to be given. These factors differ across organisations, and can be discussed at length with medical providers.
Furthermore, arrangements can often be made for vaccinations to be carried out in-house. “Done in an organised manner, this will benefit both the employer as well as the medical provider,” says Koh.