The Double Disparity Facing Rural Local Health Departments.

Residents of rural jurisdictions face significant health challenges, including some of the highest rates of risky health behaviors and worst health outcomes of any group in the country. Rural communities are served by smaller local health departments (LHDs) that are more understaffed and underfunded than their suburban and urban peers. As a result of history and current need, rural LHDs are more likely than their urban peers to be providers of direct health services, leading to relatively lower levels of population-focused activities. This review examines the double disparity faced by rural LHDs and their constituents: pervasively poorer health behaviors and outcomes and a historical lack of investment by local, state, and federal public health entities.

Multisector Health Policy Networks in 15 Large US Cities.

CONTEXT: Local health departments (LHDs) have historically not prioritized policy development, although it is one of the 3 core areas they address. One strategy that may influence policy in LHD jurisdictions is the formation of partnerships across sectors to work together on local public health policy. DESIGN: We used a network approach to examine LHD local health policy partnerships across 15 large cities from the Big Cities Health Coalition. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed the health departments and their partners about their working relationships in 5 policy areas: core local funding, tobacco control, obesity and chronic disease, violence and injury prevention, and infant mortality. OUTCOME MEASURES: Drawing on prior literature linking network structures with performance, we examined network density, transitivity, centralization and centrality, member diversity, and assortativity of ties. RESULTS: Networks included an average of 21.8 organizations. Nonprofits and government agencies made up the largest proportions of the networks, with 28.8% and 21.7% of network members, whereas for-profits and foundations made up the smallest proportions in all of the networks, with just 1.2% and 2.4% on average. Mean values of density, transitivity, diversity, assortativity, centralization, and centrality showed similarity across policy areas and most LHDs. The tobacco control and obesity/chronic disease networks were densest and most diverse, whereas the infant mortality policy networks were the most centralized and had the highest assortativity. Core local funding policy networks had lower scores than other policy area networks by most network measures. CONCLUSION: Urban LHDs partner with organizations from diverse sectors to conduct local public health policy work. Network structures are similar across policy areas jurisdictions. Obesity and chronic disease, tobacco control, and infant mortality networks had structures consistent with higher performing networks, whereas core local funding networks had structures consistent with lower performing networks.

Overcoming Barriers to Experience Benefits: A Qualitative Analysis of Electronic Health Records and Health Information Exchange Implementation in Local Health Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) are changing surveillance and analytic operations within local health departments (LHDs) across the United States. The objective of this study was to analyze the status, benefits, barriers, and ways of overcoming challenges in the implementation of EHRs and HIEs in LHDs. METHODS: This study employed a mixed methods approach, first using the 2013 National Profile of LHDs survey to ascertain the status of EHR and HIE implementation across the US, as well as to aid in selection of respondents for the second, interview-based part of project. Next, forty-nine key-informant interviews of local health department staff were conducted. Data were coded thematically and independently by two researchers. Coding was compared and re-coded using the consensus definitions. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of LHDs nationwide are using EHRs and 14 percent are using HIEs. The most frequently mentioned benefits for implementation were identified as care coordination, retrieval or managing information, and the ability to track outcomes of care. A few mentioned barriers included financial resources, resistance to change, and IT related issues during implementation. DISCUSSION: Despite financial, technical capacity, and operational constraints, leaders interviewed as part of this project were optimistic about the future of EHRs in local health departments. Recent policy changes and accreditation have implications of improving processes to affect populations served. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming the challenges in implementing EHRs can result in increased efficiencies in surveillance and higher quality patient care and tracking. However, significant opportunity cost does exist.