Impact of Local Boards of Health on Local Health Department Accreditation, Community Health Assessment, Community Health Improvement Planning, and Strategic Planning.

INTRODUCTION: Local health departments (LHDs) are increasingly using national standards to meet the challenges presented by the complex environments in which these agencies operate. Local boards of health (LBoHs) might play an instrumental role in improving LHDs' engagement in activities to meet these standards. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of LBoH performance of governance functions on LHDs having a current (completed within 5 years) community health assessment (CHA), community health improvement plan (CHIP), strategic plan, and level of engagement in the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) accreditation program. METHODS: Binary and multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze linked data from 329 LHDs participating in both the 2015 Local Board of Health Survey and the 2016 National Profile of LHDs Survey. RESULTS: Higher performance of LBoH governance functions, measured by an overall scale of LBoH taxonomy consisting of 60 items, had a significant positive effect on LHDs having completed CHA (P < .001), CHIP (P = .01), and strategic plan (P < .001). LHDs operating in communities with a higher score on the overall scale of LBoH taxonomy had significantly higher odds (P = .03) of having higher level of participation in the PHAB national voluntary accreditation program-that is, being accredited, having submitted application for accreditation, or being in the e-PHAB system (eg, by submitting a letter of intent). CONCLUSIONS: LBoHs serve as governance bodies for roughly 71% of LHDs and can play a significant role in encouraging LHDs' participation in these practices. That positive influence of LBoHs can be seen more clearly if the complexity and richness of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics are measured appropriately. The study findings suggest that LBoHs are a significant component of the public health system in the United States, having positive influence on LHDs having a CHA, CHIP, strategic plan, and participation in accreditation.

Achieving Public Health Standards and Increasing Accreditation Readiness: Findings From the National Public Health Improvement Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: During 2010-2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented the National Public Health Improvement Initiative (NPHII) to assist 73 public health agencies in conducting activities to increase accreditation readiness, improve efficiency and effectiveness through quality improvement, and increase performance management capacity. A summative evaluation of NPHII was conducted to examine whether awardees met the initiative's objectives, including increasing readiness for accreditation. DESIGN: A nonexperimental, utilization-focused evaluation with a multistrand, sequential mixed-methods approach was conducted to monitor awardee accomplishments and activities. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, as well as subanalyses of data by awardee characteristics. Thematic analysis using deductive a priori codes was used for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Ninety percent of awardees reported completing at least 1 accreditation prerequisite during NPHII, and more than half reported completing all 3 prerequisites by the end of the program. Three-fourths of awardees that completed a self-assessment reported closing gaps for at least 1 Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) standard. Within 3 years of the launch of PHAB accreditation, 7 NPHII awardees were accredited; another 38 had formally applied for accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: Through NPHII, awardees increased collaborative efforts around accreditation readiness, accelerated timelines for preparing for accreditation, and prioritized the completion of required accreditation activities.

Local Boards of Health Characteristics Influencing Support for Health Department Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Local boards of health (LBoHs) serve as the governance body for 71% of local health departments (LHDs). PURPOSE: To assess the impact of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics on the level of LBoH support of LHD accreditation. METHODS: Data from 394 LHDs that participated in the 2015 Local Boards of Health Survey were used for computing summative scores for LBoHs for domains of taxonomy and performing logistic regression analyses in 2016. RESULTS: Increased odds of an LBoH directing, encouraging, or supporting LHD accreditation activities were significantly associated with (a) a higher overall combined score measuring performance of governance functions and presence of other LBoH characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05; P < .001); (b) a higher combined score for the Governance Functions subscale (AOR = 1.06; P < .01); (c) the "continuous improvement" governance function (AOR = 1.15; P < .001); and (d) characteristics and strengths such as board composition (eg, LBoH size, type of training, elected vs nonelected members), community engagement and input, and the absence of an elected official on the board (AOR = 1.14; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: LBoHs are evenly split by thirds in their attention to Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation among the following categories: (a) encouraged or supported, (b) discussed but made no recommendations, and (c) did not discuss. This split might indicate that they are depending on the professional leadership of the LHD to make the decision or that there is a lack of awareness. The study findings have policy implications for both LBoHs and initiatives aimed at strengthening efforts to promote LHD accreditation.

Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation - United States, 2016.

In 2011, the nonprofit Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) launched the national, voluntary public health accreditation program for state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments. As of May 2016, 134 health departments have achieved 5-year accreditation through PHAB and 176 more have begun the formal process of pursuing accreditation. In addition, Florida, a centralized state in which the employees of all 67 local health departments are employees of the state, achieved accreditation for the entire integrated local public health department system in the state. PHAB-accredited health departments range in size from a small Indiana health department that serves approximately 17,000 persons to the much larger California Department of Public Health, which serves approximately 38 million persons. Collectively, approximately half the U.S. population, or nearly 167 million persons, is covered by an accredited health department. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia now have at least one nationally accredited health department. In a survey conducted through a contract with a social science research organization during 2013-2016, >90% of health departments that had been accredited for 1 year reported that accreditation has stimulated quality improvement and performance improvement opportunities, increased accountability and transparency, and improved management processes.

State Public Health Enabling Authorities: Results of a Fundamental Activities Assessment Examining Core and Essential Services.

CONTEXT: Public health enabling authorities establish the legal foundation for financing, organizing, and delivering public health services. State laws vary in terms of the content, depth, and breadth of these fundamental public health activities. Given this variance, the Institute of Medicine has identified state public health laws as an area that requires further examination. To respond to this call for further examination, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Law Program conducted a fundamental activities legal assessment on state public health laws. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the legal assessment was to examine state laws referencing frameworks representing public health department fundamental activities (ie, core and essential services) in an effort to identify, catalog, and describe enabling authorities of state governmental public health systems. DESIGN: In 2013, Public Health Law Program staff compiled a list of state statutes and regulations referencing different commonly-recognized public health frameworks of fundamental activities. The legal assessment included state fundamental activities laws available on WestlawNext as of July 2013. The results related to the 10 essential public health services and the 3 core public health functions were confirmed and updated in June 2016. RESULTS: Eighteen states reference commonly-recognized frameworks of fundamental activities in their laws. Thirteen states have listed the 10 essential public health services in their laws. Eight of these states have also referenced the 3 core public health functions in their laws. Five states reference only the core public health functions. CONCLUSIONS: Several states reference fundamental activities in their state laws, particularly through use of the essential services framework. Further work is needed to capture the public health laws and practices of states that may be performing fundamental activities but without reference to a common framework.

Defining the functions of public health governance.

We conducted a literature review in 2011 to determine if accepted governance functions continue to reflect the role of public health governing entities. Reviewing literature and other source documents, as well as consulting with practitioners, resulted in an iterative process that identified 6 functions of public health governance and established definitions for each of these: policy development; resource stewardship; continuous improvement; partner engagement; legal authority; and oversight of a health department. These functions provided context for the role of governing entities in public health practice and aligned well with existing public health accreditation standards. Public health systems research can build from this work in future explorations of the contributions of governance to health department performance.

A study of incentives to support and promote public health accreditation.

CONTEXT: Accreditation of public health agencies through the Public Health Accreditation Board is voluntary. Incentives that encourage agencies to apply for accreditation have been suggested as important factors in facilitating participation by state and local agencies. OBJECTIVE: The project describes both current and potential incentives that are available at the federal, state, and local levels. DESIGN: Thirty-nine key informants from local, state, tribal, federal, and academic settings were interviewed from March through May 2012. Through open-ended interviews, respondents were asked about incentives that were currently in use in their settings and incentives they thought would help encourage participation in Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation. RESULTS: Incentives currently in use by public health agencies based on interviews include (1) financial support, (2) legal mandates, (3) technical assistance, (4) peer support workgroups, and (5) state agencies serving as role models by seeking accreditation themselves. Key informants noted that state agencies are playing valuable and diverse roles in providing incentives for accreditation within their own states. Key informants also identified the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other players, such as private foundations, public health institutes, national and state associations, and academia as providing both technical and financial assistance to support accreditation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: State, tribal, local, and federal agencies, as well as related organizations can play an important role by providing incentives to move agencies toward accreditation.

Guiding the way to public health improvement: exploring the connections between The Community Guide's Evidence-Based Interventions and health department accreditation standards.

CONTEXT: Recent years have seen rising interest in initiatives that focus on public health improvement. This includes support for accreditation of public health departments-administered by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB)-and increasing expectations that health departments should use evidence-based programs, services, and policies (interventions) such as those described in The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). OBJECTIVE: This project was initiated to explore the potential connections between Community Guide interventions and PHAB domains, standards, and measures. DESIGN: The project team focused on developing a Crosswalk tool to assist health departments in identifying evidence-based interventions from The Community Guide whose implementation could help document conformity with PHAB domains, standards, and measures. All Community Preventive Services Task Force-recommended interventions were reviewed to determine whether they reflect the intent and requirements of the PHAB standards and measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three types of connections were defined through which Community Guide interventions could be relevant to the required documentation for a PHAB measure. All instances of these connections were identified and included in the Crosswalk. RESULTS: The Crosswalk tool consists of 2 tables. The first table cross-references individual PHAB domains, standards, and measures with interventions from The Community Guide that could help provide documentation for accreditation. The second table can help accreditation preparation staff to engage with program staff. It is searchable by Community Guide topic, identifying the PHAB measures that relate to each Community Guide intervention within that topic. The type, location, and extent of connections between Community Guide interventions and PHAB domains, standards, and measures are presented and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Tools such as the Crosswalk can be instrumental in advancing the use of evidence-based interventions in public health practice.

Accreditation and emergency preparedness: linkages and opportunities for leveraging the connections.

BACKGROUND: Public health officials must frequently demonstrate the quality and value of public health services, especially during challenging fiscal climates. One of the ways that public health quality and accountability have been demonstrated is through the use of accreditation and standard setting initiatives. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to identify existing alignment opportunities between standards established by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) public health preparedness (PHP) capabilities in order to optimize and leverage the connections for state and local public health professionals. DESIGN: During March-May 2012, a PHAB/PHP crosswalk was developed by a research team from the CDC's Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support and Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response's Division of State and Local Readiness to examine the intersection of the PHP capabilities and the PHAB standards. The PHAB/PHP crosswalk used the CDC Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning (PHP Capabilities) and the PHAB Standards and Measures, Version 1.0 (PHAB Standards) as its source documents. To help illustrate the results of the crosswalk, alignment was also depicted through a network graph to transform the results into a visual depiction of the linkages between PHP capabilities and PHAB standards. RESULTS: The most direct links to emergency preparedness were found in PHAB Domains 2 and 5. Opportunities for improved alignment were found throughout the standard documents, particularly in PHAB Domains 3, 8, and 11. The most direct links to accreditation were found in PHP capabilities 1, 2, 3, and 4. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the synergy between the infrastructure and foundational elements represented by accreditation and targeted programmatic activities supported by preparedness funding.

Turning point revisited: launching the next generation of performance management in public health.

A decade ago, the Turning Point Performance Management Excellence Collaborative (Turning Point) developed the first public health-specific performance management (PM) system, with accompanying resource materials, assisted by the Public Health Foundation. Since then, dramatic advancements in PM and quality improvement activities have occurred in public health. Public Health Foundation gathered data that revealed Turning Point was still relevant but difficult to implement within public health. To reflect recent advances and current challenges, Public Health Foundation refreshed the Turning Point model and related guidance tools and developed new resources to facilitate PM implementation. In addition, a new fifth component, "Visible Leadership," was added to the 4-quadrant model and the Self-Assessment Tool. In the future, public health organizations should take an active leadership role in innovating and sustaining PM systems, ensuring they become accountable for producing outcomes, leveraging technology advances, and incorporating best practices from all stakeholders.

The national public health performance standards: driving quality improvement in public health systems.

Since its inception in 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) has helped lay the groundwork for public health quality improvement (QI) activities at the state and local levels. This article describes how the NPHPSP has promoted QI through its instruments and guidance and how it has continually strengthened the focus on QI over the years. The NPHPSP Version 2 instruments and enhanced guidance have been designed to more strongly reinforce QI and catalyze the transition from assessment to action. Despite positive reports from some state and local users that emphasize the value the NPHPSP holds for those that do successfully move forward with improvement actions, 2005 evaluation results from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials indicated challenges in transitioning the assessments results into performance improvement. More recent data are promising; a 2009 postassessment survey of early Version 2 respondents indicates that the majority (75% of all respondents) report action in one or more performance improvement steps. The NPHPSP has played an important role in fostering QI in many states and local jurisdictions. Furthermore, its experiences and lessons learned in supporting QI have helped to pave the way for other initiatives, such as the emerging national accreditation system for state and local health departments.

Defining quality improvement in public health.

Many industries commonly use quality improvement (QI) techniques to improve service delivery and process performance. Yet, there has been scarce application of these proven methods to public health settings and the public health field has not developed a set of shared principles or a common definition for quality improvement. This article discusses a definition of quality improvement in public health and describes a continuum of quality improvement applications for public health departments. Quality improvement is a distinct management process and set of tools and techniques that are coordinated to ensure that departments consistently meet the health needs of their communities.

Incentives to encourage participation in the national public health accreditation model: a systematic investigation.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify the incentives most likely to encourage voluntary participation in the national public health accreditation model. METHODS: We reviewed existing incentives, held meetings with key informants, and conducted a survey of state and local public health agency representatives. The survey was sent to all state health departments and a sample of local health departments. Group-specific differences in survey responses were examined. RESULTS: Survey response rates were 51% among state health department representatives and 49% among local health department representatives. Both state health department and local health department respondents rated financial incentives for accredited agencies, financial incentives for agencies considering accreditation, and infrastructure and quality improvement as important incentives. State health department respondents also indicated that grant administration and grant application would encourage their participation in the national accreditation model, and local health department respondents also noted that technical assistance and training would encourage their participation. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives to encourage participation of state and local agencies in the national voluntary accreditation model should include financial support as well as support for agency infrastructure and quality improvements. Several initiatives are already under way to support agency infrastructure and quality improvement, but financial support incentives have yet to be developed.

Public Health Agency Responses and Opportunities to Protect Against Health Impacts of Climate Change Among US Populations with Multiple Vulnerabilities.

During the past several decades, unprecedented global changes in climate have given rise to an increase in extreme weather and other climate events and their consequences such as heavy rainfall, hurricanes, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and air pollution. These climate effects have direct impacts on human health such as premature death, injuries, exacerbation of health conditions, disruption of mental well-being, as well as indirect impacts through food- and water-related infections and illnesses. While all populations are at risk for these adverse health outcomes, some populations are at greater risk because of multiple vulnerabilities resulting from increased exposure to risk-prone areas, increased sensitivity due to underlying health conditions, and limited adaptive capacity primarily because of a lack of economic resources to respond adequately. We discuss current governmental public health responses and their future opportunities to improve resilience of special populations at greatest risk for adverse health outcomes. Vulnerability assessment, adaptation plans, public health emergency response, and public health agency accreditation are all current governmental public health actions. Governmental public health opportunities include integration of these current responses with health equity initiatives and programs in communities.