Australian National Immunization Program Issues 2022

Report and Critical Analysis 1
Report and Critical Analysis
By (Name of Student)
Institution
City/State
Course Number
Professor
Date

Report and Critical Analysis 2
Report and Critical Analysis
Executive Summary
The purpose of this critical analysis is to evaluate the Australian National Immunization
Program (NIP). The paper examines the key healthcare issues characterizing the implementation
of robust care programs. Therefore, the paper has examined how NIP addressed the ethical,
quality, safety, and risk dimensions of healthcare programs. Based on the assessment conducted
in this paper, it is evident that NIP is a comprehensive, inclusive, and continuous program that
was tailored to meet the needs of the targeted population. The strategic implementation ensured
that the program was equitable, ethical, accessible, safe, quality, effective, and sustainable both
in short-term and long-term.
A. Description of the Program
The National Immunization Program (NIP) is a product of the Commonwealth in
collaboration with the state as well as territorial governments in Australia. It was established
back in 1997 with the sole objective of enhancing the scope of national immunization (Wilyman,
2015). The government intended to use increased coverage as a method of reducing the number
of reported instances of diseases and conditions that could be prevented when vaccination is
administered in time and appropriately. The program was designed to offer free vaccination to
Australians who meet the eligibility guidelines with the objective of reducing the prevalence of
preventable diseases (Department of Health, 2019).
Moreover, through NIP, the government targeted increased immunization coverage. The
justification of the program was based on clinical evidence pointing out how immunization is a
safe and effective strategy that could be used to protect the community against the identified
preventable diseases. The program eligibility depended on the age of an individual or specific

Report and Critical Analysis 3
diagnosis. The major targeted groups included children, older people, infants, and teenagers.
However, the government was also keen to include other minority groups in the community
considered to be at a higher risk of specific infections when compared to the mainstream
population. A range of vaccination providers were identified to pioneer the program and make
the service accessible to the targeted groups and population. NIP is an initiative that is
collaboratively governed by the Commonwealth, territorial, and state authorities (Department of
Health, 2019). The success of the program required proper planning and implementation as well
as the availability of financial resources and skills.
The government collaborated with state and territory governments to ensure that the
program is implemented as a seven-point framework. Therefore, it included the provision of
incentives to vulnerable families, monitoring of NIP targets, the designation of special schedules
in low coverage areas, incorporate measles eradication program, foster education and awareness,
enhance research, and development of a national center for immunization (Department of Health,
2013). Other strategies enacted by the government to enhance NIP effectiveness included the re-
implementation of the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ policy and getting support from NPEV (Fileding et al.,
2017; NPEV, 2017).
B. Ethical Considerations
Help or Benefit to Others
The purpose of enacting immunization programs is based on the needs in the community,
which majorly related to the prevalence of preventable diseases. Preventable diseases have the
same risks and implications among the affected individual. Lack of initiatives to control
preventable infections could lead to death, life-threatening implications, and increased cost of
healthcare. The use of immunization provides an efficient way of improving community

Report and Critical Analysis 4
wellbeing (Danchin and Nolan, 2014). NIP was designed to meet the needs of the government in
terms of disease control while fostering the existence of healthy communities (Department of
Health, 2019). The planning of the program targeted diverse groups starting from infants to older
adults with the objective of reducing the diagnosis of preventable diseases and conditions. By
enhancing access to vaccination for the selected preventable diseases, the government offered a
platform for safe communities, reduced infant mortality, and infections, and declined infections
among older adults and teenagers (Department of Health, 2019). Special groups such as low-
income earners face significant challenges relating to affordability of healthcare services and NIP
targets this group to reduce the prevalence of common conditions. The government empowered
state and territorial health departments to support and enhance immunization coverage to
improve the wellbeing of Australians (National Partnership on Essential Vaccines, 2017).
Do No Harm
The government is committed to ensuring that measures are in place to improve the
safety of the vaccine by constant monitoring of the laid system (Dare, 2014). Such a move was to
ensure that the NIP did not bring any form of harm to the targeted population. One of the
concerns for initiating safety and monitoring of vaccine systems and framework was the need to
adhere to internal best practices defining policies, implementation, surveillance, and monitoring
of healthcare programs. Therefore, the government ensured that the state and territory
governments worked together with the involved stakeholders to prevent adverse events and
guarantee timeliness and completeness of reporting in case of any form of occurrence. It is the
responsibility of the government to ensure that the implemented healthcare programs are safe in
terms of physical and psychological implications (Department of Health, 2019). Programs that