State of public health emergency response leadership training: A multitiered organizational perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To capture organizational level information on the current state of public health emergency response leadership training. DESIGN: A web-based questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: This multitiered assessment of health departments included two distinct respondent groups: (1) Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement recipients (n = 34) and (2) local health departments (LHDs) (n = 169) representative of different agency sizes and populations served. RESULTS: Overall, PHEP and LHD respondents expressed a clear preference for participatory learning with practical drills/exercises and participatory workshops as the preferred training delivery modes. Compared with technical and role-specific training, leadership training was less available. For both PHEP and LHD respondents, staff availability for training is most notably limited due to lack of time. For PHEP respondents, a common factor limiting agency ability to offer training is lack of mentors/instructors, whereas for LHD respondents, it is limited funding. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts should focus on increasing accessibility and the continued development of rigorous and effective training based on practical experience in all aspects of multitiered public health emergency response leadership.

Public health preparedness and response competency model methodology.

OBJECTIVE: The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act calls for establishing a competency-based training program to train public health practitioners. To inform such training, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Schools of Public Health managed groups of experts to produce a competency model which could function as a national standard of behaviorally based, observable skills for the public health workforce to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from all hazards. DESIGN: A systematic review of existing competency models generated a competency model of proposed domains and competencies. PARTICIPANTS: National stakeholders were engaged to obtain consensus through a three-stage Delphi-like process. RESULTS: The Delphi-like process achieved 84 percent, 82 percent, and 79 percent response rates in its three stages. Three hundred sixty six unique individuals responded to the three-round process, with 45 percent (n = 166) responding to all three rounds. The resulting competency model features 18 competencies within four core learning domains targeted at midlevel public health workers. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners and academics have adopted the Public Health Preparedness and Response Core Competency Model, some of whom have formed workgroups to develop curricula based on the model. Efforts will be needed to develop evaluation materials for training and education programs to refine the model as well as for future training and education initiatives.

The Local Health Department Mandate and Capacity for Community Engagement in Emergency Preparedness: A National View Over Time.

CONTEXT: Local health departments (LHDs) perform the highly valued, yet time- and staff-intensive work of community engagement in public health emergency preparedness (CE-PHEP) when the Great Recession has had lingering effects on their organizational capacity. OBJECTIVE: Track the extent to which LHDs still embrace collaborative, whole community approaches to PHEP in a historically low resource environment. DESIGN: National survey in 2015 of LHDs using a self-administered online questionnaire regarding LHD practices and resources for CE-PHEP first fielded in 2012 ("The Community Engagement for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Survey"). Differences in 2015 survey responses were reviewed, and comparisons made between 2012 and 2015 responses. SETTING: Randomized sample of 811 LHDs drawn from 2565 LHDs that were invited to participate in the 2010 National Profile of LHDs and participated in the 2012 CE-PHEP survey. Sample selection was stratified by geographic location and size of population served. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency preparedness coordinators reporting on the LHDs they serve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Community engagement in public health emergency preparedness intensity as measured by a scoring system that valued specific practices on the basis of the community capacity and public participation they represented. RESULTS: Survey response was 30%; 243 LHDs participated. The CE-PHEP activities and intensity scores remained unchanged from 2012 to 2015. Local health departments that reported having an explicit CE-PHEP policy and experienced CE-PHEP staff member--2 of the top 3 predictors of CE-PHEP intensity--have dropped between 2012 and 2015. The numbers of LHDs with a CE-PHEP budget, also an important predictor of intensity, have not increased in a statistically significant way during that same period. CONCLUSIONS: Local health departments appear to be in a CE-PHEP holding pattern, presumably pushed forward by the doctrinal focus on partner-centered preparedness but held back by capacity issues, in particular, limited staff and partner support. Local health departments operating in low-resource environments are encouraged to formalize their CE-PHEP policy to advance performance in this arena.

High-Performing Local Health Departments Relate Their Experiences at Community Engagement in Emergency Preparedness.

CONTEXT: Local health departments (LHDs) are implementing a national mandate to engage community partners, including individuals, businesses, and community- and faith-based organizations in the larger public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) enterprise. OBJECTIVE: Investigate how LHDs of varying size and resource levels successfully engage the community in PHEP to help uncover "best practices" that aspiring agencies can replicate, particularly in low-resource environments. DESIGN: In-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews with practitioners from 9 highly performing LHDs. SETTING: Participating agencies comprised equal amounts of small (serving <50 000 residents), medium (serving 50 000-500 000 residents), and large (serving >500 000 residents) LHDs and were diverse in terms of geographic region, rural-urban environment, and governance structure. PARTICIPANTS: A cross section of LHD staff (n = 34) including agency leaders, preparedness coordinators, public information officers, and health educators/promoters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Local health department performance at community engagement as determined by top scores in 2 national LHD surveys (2012, 2015) regarding community engagement in PHEP. RESULTS: Based on key informant accounts, high-performing LHDs show a holistic, organization-wide commitment to, rather than discrete focus on, community engagement. Best practices clustered around 5 domains: administration (eg, top executive who models collaborative behavior), organizational culture (eg, solicitous rather than prescriptive posture regarding community needs), social capital (eg, mining preexisting community connections held by other LHD programs), workforce skills (eg, cultural competence), and methods/tactics (eg, visibility in community events unrelated to PHEP). CONCLUSIONS: For LHDs that wish to enhance their performance at community engagement in PHEP, change will entail adoption of evidence-based interventions (the technical "what") as well as evidence-based administrative approaches (the managerial "how"). Smaller, rural LHDs should be encouraged that, in the case of PHEP community engagement, they have unique social assets that may help offset advantages that larger, more materially resourced metropolitan health departments may have.

Public health response systems in-action: learning from local health departments' experiences with acute and emergency incidents.

As part of their core mission, public health agencies attend to a wide range of disease and health threats, including those that require routine, acute, and emergency responses. While each incident is unique, the number and type of response activities are finite; therefore, through comparative analysis, we can learn about commonalities in the response patterns that could improve predictions and expectations regarding the resources and capabilities required to respond to future acute events. In this study, we interviewed representatives from more than 120 local health departments regarding their recent experiences with real-world acute public health incidents, such as infectious disease outbreaks, severe weather events, chemical spills, and bioterrorism threats. We collected highly structured data on key aspects of the incident and the public health response, particularly focusing on the public health activities initiated and community partners engaged in the response efforts. As a result, we are able to make comparisons across event types, create response profiles, and identify functional and structural response patterns that have import for future public health preparedness and response. Our study contributes to clarifying the complexity of public health response systems and our analysis reveals the ways in which these systems are adaptive to the character of the threat, resulting in differential activation of functions and partners based on the type of incident. Continued and rigorous examination of the experiences of health departments throughout the nation will refine our very understanding of what the public health response system is, will enable the identification of organizational and event inputs to performance, and will allow for the construction of rich, relevant, and practical models of response operations that can be employed to strengthen public health systems.

Public health preparedness and response competency model methodology.

OBJECTIVE: The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act calls for establishing a competency-based training program to train public health practitioners. To inform such training, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Schools of Public Health managed groups of experts to produce a competency model which could function as a national standard of behaviorally based, observable skills for the public health workforce to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from all hazards. DESIGN: A systematic review of existing competency models generated a competency model of proposed domains and competencies. PARTICIPANTS: National stakeholders were engaged to obtain consensus through a three-stage Delphi-like process. RESULTS: The Delphi-like process achieved 84 percent, 82 percent, and 79 percent response rates in its three stages. Three hundred sixty six unique individuals responded to the three-round process, with 45 percent (n = 166) responding to all three rounds. The resulting competency model features 18 competencies within four core learning domains targeted at midlevel public health workers. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners and academics have adopted the Public Health Preparedness and Response Core Competency Model, some of whom have formed workgroups to develop curricula based on the model. Efforts will be needed to develop evaluation materials for training and education programs to refine the model as well as for future training and education initiatives.

Implications of preparedness and response core competencies for public health.

Public health care practitioners and organizations are a part of community readiness for, response to, and recovery from emergencies and disasters of all kinds. Although response to health threats, particularly communicable disease outbreaks, have long been a part of public health practice, 2 advancements in preparedness, including the integration of public health into the broader community emergency response system and the clarification of exactly what knowledge, skills, and attitudes a public health professional brings to the response, have been made since 2001. This article presents the newly affirmed core competencies to be attained and maintained by the majority of the public health workforce and discusses some of the many ways in which these competencies influence practice, research, and education.

The Team Nutrition pilot study: lessons learned from implementing a comprehensive school-based intervention.

Team Nutrition (TN) is an educational and promotional initiative developed by the US Department of Agriculture to change children's eating behaviors through social marketing techniques. This article reports on the process evaluation of a TN pilot project targeting students in kindergarten to grade 4 and systematically documents the implementation experience. Even with a very short start-up period, schools implemented most components of this multichannel nutrition intervention and formed new, supportive relationships with local media and community partners. School teachers and administrators, along with foodservice professionals, generally expressed support for and satisfaction with TN, citing the positive experience and gains for students. The lessons learned from this study highlight the management and organizational issues involved in a comprehensive intervention. These include the importance of local coordinators to support and create a bridge between teachers and cafeteria staff and to forge links with key external partners. To function effectively, coordinators themselves may need training in coalition building and working with media. Relationships formed with parents, local businesses, other educational institutions, health organizations, and the media offer promise for helping to sustain nutrition education efforts. The TN process evaluation identified multiple ideas for pursuing these partnerships more successfully.