Experience in Communicating Vaccine Side Effects in a Covid-19 Population Vaccination Centre in North-East Italy

Introduction: Our hospital operated a population vaccination centre (CVP) in Verona between March and August 2021, administering an average of 2000-2500 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations per day. Risk communication offers a methodology for assessing the risk perception of vaccines; managing high volumes of activity may need to consider the ways and processes of communicating the risk of adverse events [1-2]. Objective: What to improve for better risk communication in CVP during a mass-vaccination campaign; compare the differences between reports detected by hospital, regional, and national pharmacovigilance. Methods: A fact sheet was produced based on the guidance of the ministry of health and the drug agency. It was possible to look up information regarding vaccine adverse events during online booking. Multiple videowall were installed before the medical check. Healthcare workers were trained on adverse event risk communication and reporting methods: an online dataset was collected and share online to physicians involved in the vaccination campaign. Moreover through a surveillance conducted between March and August 2021, we asked users about their level of satisfaction with the information they received regarding to clarity, completeness of information received, and informed consent form. We collected adverse event reports from the Verona hospital through 2021; we collected data from regional reports and from AIFA reports. We compared the hospital data with regional and national data. Results: Survey collected 3871 answers; about information area 71.10% were extremely satisfied. Who were dissatisfied request for more information materials at each stage of vaccination: before (information about vaccines), during (information about procedures and side effects) and after the vaccination session (more complete information on how to report adverse events). Staff area (medical and nurse) collected 88.40% extremely satisfied. AOVR collected 392 reports of adverse events (356 [99.82%] non serious and 36 [9.18%] serious); Veneto collected 15.982 (14.513 [90.82%] non serious and 1.468 [9.18%] serious); National data were 97.846 (83.967 [85.93%] non serious and 13.741 [14.06%] serious) [3-5]. Conclusion: The management of risk communication during the operation of a population centre (CVP) was perceived with satisfaction by the users. The values of adverse event reports received by AOVRs pharmacovigilance system are comparable with regional data and serious events are lo