Promising Practices Observed in High-Throughput COVID-19 Vaccination Sites in the United States, February-May 2021.

Objectives. To identify promising practices for implementing COVID-19 vaccination sites. Methods. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assessed high-throughput COVID-19 vaccination sites across the United States, including Puerto Rico, after COVID-19 vaccinations began. Site assessors conducted site observations and interviews with site staff. Qualitative data were compiled and thematically analyzed. Results. CDC and FEMA conducted 134 assessments of high-throughput vaccination sites in 25 states and Puerto Rico from February 12 to May 28, 2021. Promising practices were identified across facility, clinical, and cross-cutting operational areas and related to 6 main themes: addressing health equity, leveraging partnerships, optimizing site design and flow, communicating through visual cues, using quick response codes, and prioritizing risk management and quality control. Conclusions. These practices might help planning and implementation of future vaccination operations for COVID-19, influenza, and other vaccine-preventable diseases. Public Health Implications. These practices can be considered by vaccination planners and providers to strengthen their vaccination site plans and implementation of future high-throughput vaccination sites. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(8):909-918. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307331).

Lessons learned for public health workforce development: An evaluation of the centers for disease control and prevention's laboratory leadership service fellowship.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Laboratory Leadership Service (LLS) Fellowship Program in July 2015 to develop public health laboratory (PHL) leaders who will improve PHL quality and safety. This article describes a retrospective, summative evaluation to determine the extent to which LLS has met its short-term goals for PHL workforce development. The evaluation relied on existing data from routine LLS data collection and reporting, supplemented with a new alumni survey. The purpose of the design was threefold: 1) to reduce data collection burden on program staff and participants, 2) to assess the value and limits of routine fellowship data for comprehensive public health workforce development program evaluation, and 3) to identify ways to improve LLS's routine data collections for program evaluation. We used descriptive statistics, qualitative analysis, and participatory methods (i.e., a data party) to analyze and interpret data. Results show LLS short-term outcome achievement and highlight opportunities for program improvement, particularly related to the design of certain training requirements and for future evaluations. Overall, the evaluation contributes to lessons learned for PHL workforce development efforts, including how routine data collections can contribute to comprehensive public health workforce development evaluations.