Outbreaks of Hepatitis A in US Communities, 2017-2018: Firsthand Experiences and Operational Lessons From Public Health Responses.

Objectives. To identify and analyze common challenges from multiple US communities affected by the hepatitis A epidemic beginning in March 2017, and to identify operational lessons to support preparedness for similar future public health emergencies.Methods. We conducted semistructured interviews with health officials from 9 city or county health departments to collect the firsthand experience of public health responders. We collected data from January to October 2018 via teleconference. Key informants, whom we purposefully sampled, were senior public health officials who were directly involved in outbreak response or in preparing for potential hepatitis A outbreaks in their communities.Results. Several themes emerged during these discussions, including common challenges and solutions pertaining to sanitation and hygiene infrastructure, hepatitis A vaccination, health workforce availability and surge capacity, communication and stigma, and partnerships and coordination with local law enforcement and other stakeholders.Conclusions. By generating key, evidence-based operational lessons, this study can inform response activities in localities currently experiencing outbreaks as well as community preparedness for possible future outbreaks due to the presence of similar at-risk populations.

Local Public Health Policymakers' Views on State Preemption: Results of a National Survey, 2018.

Objectives. To learn about local health policymakers' experiences and responses to preemption-the ability of a higher level of government to limit policy activity at a lower level. Methods. Between March and June 2018, we conducted an anonymous Web-based survey of mayors and health officials in US cities with populations of 150 000 or more. We used descriptive statistics to analyze multiple-choice responses. We analyzed open text responses qualitatively. Results. Survey response rates were 28% (mayors) and 32% (health officials). Nearly all respondents found preemption to be an obstacle to local policymaking. When faced with preemption, 72% of health officials and 60% of mayors abandoned or delayed local policymaking efforts. Conclusions. Preemption is viewed as an impediment across a range of public health issues and may stifle local policy activity (i.e., have a chilling effect). Those working at the local level should consider the potential for preemption whenever seeking to address public health concerns in their communities. Public Health Implications. Local governments should engage with advocates, practitioners, and public health lawyers to learn about successful and failed efforts to meet public health objectives when faced with preemption.

Epidemiology Workforce Capacity in 27 Large Urban Health Departments in the United States, 2017.

OBJECTIVES: The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) has periodically assessed the epidemiological capacity of states since 2001, but the data do not reflect the total US epidemiology capacity. CSTE partnered with the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) in 2017 to assess epidemiology capacity in large urban health departments. We described the epidemiology workforce capacity of large urban health departments in the United States and determined gaps in capacity among BCHC health departments. METHODS: BCHC, in partnership with CSTE, modified the 2017 State Epidemiology Capacity Assessment for its 30 member departments. Topics in the assessment included epidemiology leadership, staffing, funding, capacity to perform 4 epidemiology-related Essential Public Health Services, salary ranges, hiring requirements, use of competencies, training needs, and job vacancies. RESULTS: The 27 (90%) BCHC-member health departments that completed the assessment employed 1091 full-time equivalent epidemiologists. All or nearly all health departments provided epidemiology services for programs in infectious disease (n = 27), maternal and child health (n = 27), preparedness (n = 27), chronic diseases (n = 25), vital statistics (n = 25), and environmental health (n = 23). On average, funding for epidemiology activities came from local (47%), state (24%), and federal (27%) sources. Health departments reported needing a 40% increase from the current number of epidemiologists to achieve ideal epidemiology capacity. Twenty-five health departments reported substantial-to-full capacity to monitor health problems, 21 to diagnose health problems, 11 to conduct evaluations, and 9 to perform applied research. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to meet 21st century challenges and increase substantial-to-full epidemiological capacity include seeking funds from nongovernmental sources, partnering with schools and programs of public health, and identifying creative solutions to hiring and retaining epidemiologists.

The First Nationally Representative Benchmark of the Local Governmental Public Health Workforce: Findings From the 2017 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey.

CONTEXT: A changing public health landscape requires local governmental health departments (LHDs) to have a workforce prepared to meet complex challenges. While previous assessments looked at organizational data on the LHD workforce, the Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS) is the first nationally representative survey to examine individual perceptions of training needs, workplace environment, job satisfaction, and awareness of emerging concepts in public health. OBJECTIVES: Characterize key interests and needs of the local governmental public health workforce. DESIGN: Survey invitations were sent to individual LHD employees on the basis of a stratified sampling approach. The LHDs had to employ a minimum of 25 staff and serve a population of 25 000 or greater to be eligible for inclusion. SETTING: 399 LHDs across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 26 533 LHD employees completed the survey (59% response rate). RESULTS: The majority of local public health workers are female (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78%-84%) and white non-Hispanic (68%, 95% CI: 64%-72%). Of the nearly quarter of workers who declared an intent to leave within the next year excluding retirement (22%, 95% CI: 19%-25%), the most common reasons included pay (46%, 95% CI: 42%-50%), lack of opportunities for advancement (40%, 95% CI: 38%-50%), and workplace environment (30%, 95% CI: 27%-32%). Across jurisdiction size and supervisory level, skills gaps were noted in budget and financial management, systems and strategic thinking, developing a vision for a healthy community, and change management. CONCLUSIONS: As the first nationally representative sample of the local governmental public health workforce, these data create a national benchmark against which LHDs can measure their workforce. Given the similarities found across LHDs serving different jurisdiction sizes, a unified approach to workforce development should be employed across all LHDs. The LHD leadership should address retention, reward creativity and innovation, improve communication between leadership and employees, and provide opportunities for advancement.

The Governmental Public Health Workforce in 26 Cities: PH WINS Results From Big Cities Health Coalition Members.

CONTEXT: More than 80% of Americans live in urban areas. Over the past 20 years, an increasing number of local governmental public health departments, particularly those in big cities, have taken pioneering action to improve population health. This article focuses on members of the Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC) who participated in the 2017 Public Health Workforce Interest and Needs Survey (PH WINS). If the impact of these health departments is to be sustained, they will require a workforce prepared for the challenges of 21st-century public health practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize workforce interests and needs among staff in 26 large, urban health departments who are BCHC members. DESIGN: Administered PH WINS survey to staff in BCHC member health departments to assess perceptions about the workplace environment and job satisfaction; training needs; awareness of national trends; and demographics. SETTING: In total, 26 of 30 BCHC member health departments, United States. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 7453 of 17 613 staff members (response rate 43.4%) from participating departments. RESULTS: The workforce consists predominantly of women (75%) and people of color (68%). Staff is satisfied with their job (81%), the organization (71%), and pay (59%), but more than a quarter are considering leaving within the year. The agency's mission drives staff, but it lacks an environment fostering creativity and innovation. Training needs include budgeting/financial management, change management, and strategic thinking. CONCLUSIONS: BCHC departments must improve retention, provide opportunities for advancement, enhance communication between leadership and staff, foster creativity and innovation, and align labor allocation with disease burden in local communities. Findings from the second iteration of PH WINS allow a comprehensive, comparable analysis of the workforce across the 26 BCHC member health departments that participated. These data expand upon the ability to assess and monitor improvement in the workforce environment, job satisfaction, awareness of national trends, and training needs.

Assessing the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Public Health Professionals in Big City Governmental Health Departments.

OBJECTIVE: To identify essential knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) for and characterize gaps in KSAs of professionals working in large, urban health departments. DESIGN: A survey was disseminated to potentially eligible supervisors within 26 of 28 health departments in the largest, most urban jurisdictions in the country. A supervisor was eligible to participate if he or she supervised at least 1 staff member whose highest level of education was a master's degree. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 645 eligible supervisors participated in the workforce survey for a response rate of 27.1% and cooperation rate of 55.2%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Supervisors were asked to rate the importance of KSAs to their masters-level staffs' work and indicate their staffs' proficiency. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of supervisors reported supervising staff with a master of public health/master of science in public health degree. More than 30% of supervisors indicated that all of the 30 KSAs were essential. Four of the top 10 KSAs rated as essential by supervisors pertained to the ability to communicate. The top skills gaps perceived by supervisors were professional staffs' ability to apply quality improvement concepts to their work (38.0%), understanding of the political system (37.7%), and ability to anticipate changes (33.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Public health practitioners receive training in methods, theories, and evidence-based approaches, yet further investment in the workforce is necessary to advance population health. A focus should be placed developing strategic skills rather than advancing narrow specialties. Findings from this research can guide the creation and implementation of training curricula and professional development programs offered within local health departments or targeted to their staff, as well as satisfaction of accreditation requirements. By focusing on building strategic skills, we can ensure a public health workforce that is equipped with the KSAs necessary to practice Public Health 3.0 and leaders who are able to serve as their communities' chief health strategists.

Decision Processes and Determinants of Hospital Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place During Hurricane Sandy.

CONTEXT: Evacuation and shelter-in-place decision making for hospitals is complex, and existing literature contains little information about how these decisions are made in practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe decision-making processes and identify determinants of acute care hospital evacuation and shelter-in-place during Hurricane Sandy. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted from March 2014 to February 2015 with key informants who had authority and responsibility for evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions for hospitals during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees included hospital executives and state and local public health, emergency management, and emergency medical service officials from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Interviewees identified decision processes and determinants of acute care hospital evacuation and shelter-in-place during Hurricane Sandy. RESULTS: We interviewed 42 individuals from 32 organizations. Decisions makers reported relying on their instincts rather than employing guides or tools to make evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions during Hurricane Sandy. Risk to patient health from evacuation, prior experience, cost, and ability to maintain continuity of operations were the most influential factors in decision making. Flooding and utility outages, which were predicted to or actually impacted continuity of operations, were the primary determinants of evacuation. CONCLUSION: Evacuation and shelter-in-place decision making for hospitals can be improved by ensuring hospital emergency plans address flooding and include explicit thresholds that, if exceeded, would trigger evacuation. Comparative risk assessments that inform decision making would be enhanced by improved collection, analysis, and communication of data on morbidity and mortality associated with evacuation versus sheltering-in-place of hospitals. In addition, administrators and public officials can improve their preparedness to make evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions by practicing the use of decision-making tools during training and exercises.

Hospital Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place: Who Is Responsible for Decision-Making?

OBJECTIVE: During natural disasters, hospital evacuation may be necessary to ensure patient safety and care. We aimed to examine perceptions of stakeholders involved in these decisions throughout the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted from March 2014 to February 2015 to characterize stakeholders' perceptions about authority and responsibility for acute care hospital evacuation/shelter-in-place decision-making in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York during Hurricane Sandy. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using a framework approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 42 individuals from 32 organizations. Hospital executives from all states reported having authority and responsibility for evacuation/shelter-in-place decision-making. In New York and Maryland, government officials stated that they could order hospital evacuation, whereas officials in Delaware and New Jersey said the government lacked enforcement capacity and therefore could not mandate evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: Among government officials, perceived authority for hospital evacuation/shelter-in-place decision-making was viewed as a prerequisite to ordering evacuation. When both hospital executives and government officials perceive themselves to possess decision-making authority, there is the potential for inaction. Future work should examine whether a single entity bearing ultimate responsibility or regional emergency response coalitions would improve decision-making. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:320-324).

Legal Preparedness for Hurricane Sandy: Authority to Order Hospital Evacuation or Shelter-in-Place in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Hospitals were once thought to be places of refuge during catastrophic hurricanes, but recent disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy have demonstrated that some hospitals are unable to ensure the safety of patients and staff and the continuity of medical care at key times. The government has a duty to safeguard public health and a responsibility to ensure that appropriate protective action is taken when disasters threaten or impair the ability of hospitals to sustain essential services. The law can enable the government to fulfill this duty by providing necessary authority to order preventive or reactive responses--such as ordering evacuation of or sheltering-in-place in hospitals--when safety is imperiled. We systematically identified and analyzed state emergency preparedness laws that could have affected evacuation of and sheltering-in-place in hospitals in order to characterize the public health legal preparedness of 4 states (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) in the mid-Atlantic region during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. At that time, none of these 4 states had enacted statutes or regulations explicitly granting the government the authority to order hospitals to shelter-in-place. Whereas all 4 states had enacted laws explicitly enabling the government to order evacuation, the nature of this authority and the individuals empowered to execute it varied. We present empirical analyses intended to enhance public health legal preparedness and ensure these states and others are better able to respond to future natural disasters, which are predicted to be more severe and frequent as a result of climate change, as well as other hazards. States can further improve their readiness for catastrophic disasters by ensuring explicit statutory authority to order evacuation and to order sheltering-in-place, particularly of hospitals, where it does not currently exist.

Cost comparison of 2 mass vaccination campaigns against influenza A H1N1 in New York City.

Objectives. We estimated and compared total costs and costs per dose administered for 2 influenza A 2009 monovalent vaccine campaigns in New York City: an elementary school-located campaign targeting enrolled children aged 4 years and older, and a community-based points-of-dispensing campaign for anyone aged 4 years and older. Methods. We determined costs from invoices or we estimated costs. We obtained vaccination data from the Citywide Immunization Registry and reports from the community points of dispensing. Results. The school campaign delivered approximately 202,089 vaccines for $17.9 million and $88 per dose. The community campaign delivered 49,986 vaccines for $7.6 million and $151 per dose. At projected capacity, the school campaign could have delivered 371,827 doses at $53 each or $13 each when we excluded the value of in-kind resources. The community points of dispensing could have administered 174,000 doses at $51 each or $24 each when we excluded the value of in-kind resources. Conclusions. The school campaign delivered vaccines at a lower cost per dose than did the community campaign. Had demand been higher, both campaigns may have delivered vaccine at lower, more comparable cost per dose.