To reduce vaccine-preventable diseases in workers, workplace vaccination campaigns can be implemented on-site. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate adherence to workplace vaccination campaigns. Three databases, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus, were screened systematically for articles in English or Italian addressing participation in an on-site vaccination program by employees. The following data was extracted: authors, year, country, type of vaccine, type of workplace, sample size, vaccination rate. Data on the prevalence of flu vaccination were calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. Thirteen articles were included in the review, ten in the meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted in the USA (30.7%) and most vaccination campaigns were against influenza (69.2%), with a pooled estimate of 42% (95% CI: 0.25–0.60%); participation rate was highly variable, ranging from 88.9% for an influenza vaccination campaign to 5.7% for a Lyme disease vaccination campaign. Offering free on-site vaccination can be a successful tool to ensure adherence to vaccination campaigns and administration of all required doses according to the vaccine administration scheme. The occupational physician can play a key role in implementing workplace campaigns for employee mandatory vaccinations.

Worldwide, the management of health emergencies requires a high degree of preparedness and resilience on the part of governments and health systems. Indeed, disasters are becoming increasingly common, with significant health, social, and economic impacts. Living in a globalized world also means that emergencies that occur in one country often have an international, in some cases global, spread: the COVID-19 pandemic is a cogent example. The key elements in emergency management are central governance, coordination, investment of resources before the emergency occurs, and preparedness to deal with it at all levels. However, several factors might condition the response to the emergency, highlighting, as for Italy, strengths and weaknesses. In this context, policies and regulation of actions to be implemented at international and national level must be up-to-date, clear, transparent and, above all, feasible and implementable. Likewise, the allocation of resources to develop adequate preparedness plans is critical. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission proposed the temporary recovery instrument NextGenerationEU, as well as a targeted reinforcement of the European Union’s long-term budget for the period 2021–2027. The pandemic highlighted that it is necessary to interrupt the continuous defunding of the health sector, allocating funds especially in prevention, training and information activities: indeed, a greater and more aware public attention on health risks and on the impacts of emergencies can help to promote virtuous changes, sharing contents and information that act as a guide for the population.

The COVID-19 vaccination has proven to be the most effective prevention measure, reducing deaths and hospitalizations and allowing, in combination with non-pharmacological interventions, the pandemic to be tackled. Although most of the adverse reactions to vaccination present mild symptoms and serious effects are very rare, they can be the cause of legal action against the healthcare workers (HCWs) who administered it. To highlight differences in the medical liability systems, we performed a search for the three most populous countries in each continent on vaccine injury compensation programs, new laws or policies to protect HCWs administering vaccinations introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and policies on mandatory vaccinations, on literature databases and institutional sites. We found that in seven countries the medical liability system is based on Common Law, while in eleven it is mainly based on Civil Law. Considering the application of specific laws to protect HCWs who vaccinate during the pandemic, only the USA and Canada provided immunity from liability. Among the countries we analyzed, fourteen have adopted compensation funds. From an international perspective, our results highlight that in eleven (61.1%) countries medical liability is mainly based on Civil Law, whilst in seven (38.9%) it is based on Common Law.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic exhausted healthcare systems around the world, including European Union countries, with healthcare workers at the frontline. Therefore, new health laws and policies have been introduced at the national level in order to offer greater legal protection for health workers. Since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination, it has led to the development of specific laws to define the compulsoriness for particular categories. This review aimed to evaluate the system of medical liability, focusing on the ten countries of the European Union with the highest rate of vaccination coverage against SARS-CoV-2. A country-by-country analysis was conducted on the different medical liability systems of individual professionals, in general, and with specific focus on the vaccinating doctors. Additional search was conducted to investigate which European states have introduced specific policies in this field, to identify the implementation of any new laws alongside the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, and to assess which countries have adopted the European Digital COVID Certificate and funded specific compensation programs for COVID-19 vaccination. Our results highlight an extremely fragmented European scenario; therefore, this work could be a starting point to define a common approach for medical liability and related policies in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Alcohol use is an ever-growing phenomenon in the population, consumption data indicate that 5–20% of the European working population have serious problems related to alcohol. The use of alcohol constitutes a risk to the health and safety of workers as well as to the safety of the general population. The present work aims to address the problem of alcohol intake in occupational settings by comparatively analyzing alcohol consumption behavior within the 27 countries of the European Union. Methods: The purpose of this research is to analyze the differences between the 27 countries of the European Union in the application of measures to assess and manage the risk of alcohol intake in occupational settings. Results: An examination of the legislation and guidelines of the different countries reveals profound differences in the management of the problem of alcohol in the workplace. The discrepancy is very wide that it ranges from the complete absence of legislative restrictions on a national level in some countries to highly restrictive measures with severe sanctions in others. Conclusions: It would be appropriate—also for the purpose of ease of movement of workers within the European Community—to find shared management models useful for protecting the health and safety of workers and the general population.