Structure and functions of state public health agencies in 2007

Defining and classifying public health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis

Background

The introduction of the determinants of health has caused a shift towards understanding health from a holistic perspective as well as increased recognition of public health’s contributions to the health of the population. Several frameworks exist to conceptualise healthcare systems, highlighting the stark contrast of frameworks unique to public health systems. The objectives of this study were to define public health systems and assess differences between healthcare systems and public health systems within established health systems frameworks.

Methods

A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted. Databases searched included EBSCOhost, OVID, Scholars Portal, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Health Systems Evidence. Data extraction, coding and analysis followed a best-fit framework analysis method. Initial codes were based on a current leading health systems and policy classification scheme – health systems arrangements (governance, financial and delivery arrangements).

Results

A total of 5933 unique documents were identified and 67 were included in the analysis. Definitions of public health and public health systems varied significantly as did their roles and functions across jurisdictions. Public health systems arrangements generally followed those of health systems, with the addition of partnerships (community and inter-sectoral) and communication playing a larger role in public health. A public health systems framework and conceptualisation of how public health currently fits within health systems are presented.

Conclusions

Public health systems are unique and vital entities within health systems. In addition to examining how public health and public health systems have been defined within the literature, this review suggests that establishing the scope of public health is crucial to understanding its role within the larger health system and adds to the discourse around the relationship between public health, healthcare and population health. More broadly, this study addresses an important gap in understanding public health systems and provides conceptual and practical contributions as well as areas for future research.

Emergency Preparedness in the Workplace: The Flulapalooza Model for Mass Vaccination

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether an emergency preparedness structure is a feasible, efficient, and sustainable way for health care organizations to manage mass vaccination events.

METHODS

We used the Hospital Incident Command System to conduct a 1-day annual mass influenza vaccination event at Vanderbilt University Medical Center over 5 successive years (2011-2015). Using continuous quality improvement principles, we assessed whether changes in layout, supply management, staffing, and documentation systems improved efficiency.

RESULTS

A total of 66 591 influenza vaccines were administered at 5 annual Flulapalooza events; 13 318 vaccines per event on average. Changes to the physical layout, staffing mix, and documentation processes improved vaccination efficiency 74%, from approximately 38 to 67 vaccines per hour per vaccinator, while reducing overall staffing needs by 38%. An unexpected finding was the role of social media in facilitating active engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care organizations can use a closed point-of-dispensing model and Hospital Incident Command System to conduct mass vaccination events, and can adopt the "Flulapalooza method" as a best practice model to enhance efficiency.

State barriers to appropriating public health emergency response funds during the 2009 H1N1 response

OBJECTIVES

We examined state-specific administrative barriers to allocating 2009 H1N1 influenza public health emergency response (PHER) funds.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative review of PHER grants management reports to identify and code barriers reported by states in allocating funds. Using linear regression, we examined the relationship between the percentage of funds allocated and each individual barrier and, separately, the cumulative effect of multiple barriers.

RESULTS

States reported 6 barrier types, including regulatory issues (n = 14, or 28%), contracting issues (n = 14, or 28%), purchasing issues (n = 6, or 12%), legislative issues (n = 5, or 10%), staffing issues (n = 5, or 10%), and issues transferring funds between state and local health departments (n = 4, or 8%). In multivariate models, having experienced a purchasing barrier was associated with a significant decrease in PHER allocation (B = -26.4; P = .018). Separately, the cumulative effect of having 3 barriers was associated with a decrease in PHER allocation (B = -16.0; P = .079).

CONCLUSIONS

Purchasing barriers were associated with delayed use of PHER funds. Moreover, the cumulative effect of any 3 barriers hampered the allocation of funds. Understanding barriers to using funds can inform future funding guidance for improved efficiency of response efforts.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: opportunities for prevention and public health

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was enacted by the US Congress in 2010, marks the greatest change in US health policy since the 1960s. The law is intended to address fundamental problems within the US health system, including the high and rising cost of care, inadequate access to health insurance and health services for many Americans, and low health-care efficiency and quality. By 2019, the law will bring health coverage--and the health benefits of insurance--to an estimated 25 million more Americans. It has already restrained discriminatory insurance practices, made coverage more affordable, and realised new provisions to curb costs (including tests of new health-care delivery models). The new law establishes the first National Prevention Strategy, adds substantial new funding for prevention and public health programmes, and promotes the use of recommended clinical preventive services and other measures, and thus represents a major opportunity for prevention and public health. The law also provides impetus for greater collaboration between the US health-care and public health systems, which have traditionally operated separately with little interaction. Taken together, the various effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can advance the health of the US population.

The epidemiology and surveillance response to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) among local health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area

BACKGROUND

Public health surveillance and epidemiologic investigations are critical public health functions for identifying threats to the health of a community. Very little is known about how these functions are conducted at the local level. The purpose of the Epidemiology Networks in Action (EpiNet) Study was to describe the epidemiology and surveillance response to the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) by city and county health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. The study also documented lessons learned from the response in order to strengthen future public health preparedness and response planning efforts in the region.

METHODS

In order to characterize the epidemiology and surveillance response, we conducted key informant interviews with public health professionals from twelve local health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area. In order to contextualize aspects of organizational response and performance, we recruited two types of key informants: public health professionals who were involved with the epidemiology and surveillance response for each jurisdiction, as well as the health officer or his/her designee responsible for H1N1 response activities. Information about the organization, data sources for situation awareness, decision-making, and issues related to surge capacity, continuity of operations, and sustainability were collected during the key informant interviews. Content and interpretive analyses were conducted using ATLAS.ti software.

RESULTS

The study found that disease investigations were important in the first months of the pandemic, often requiring additional staff support and sometimes forcing other public health activities to be put on hold. We also found that while the Incident Command System (ICS) was used by all participating agencies to manage the response, the manner in which it was implemented and utilized varied. Each local health department (LHD) in the study collected epidemiologic data from a variety of sources, but only case reports (including hospitalized and fatal cases) and laboratory testing data were used by all organizations. While almost every LHD attempted to collect school absenteeism data, many respondents reported problems in collecting and analyzing these data. Laboratory capacity to test influenza specimens often aided an LHD's ability to conduct disease investigations and implement control measures, but the ability to test specimens varied across the region and even well-equipped laboratories exceeded their capacity. As a whole, the health jurisdictions in the region communicated regularly about key decision-making (continued on next page) (continued from previous page) related to the response, and prior regional collaboration on pandemic influenza planning helped to prepare the region for the novel H1N1 influenza pandemic. The study did find, however, that many respondents (including the majority of epidemiologists interviewed) desired an increase in regional communication about epidemiology and surveillance issues.

CONCLUSION

The study collected information about the epidemiology and surveillance response among LHDs in the San Francisco Bay Area that has implications for public health preparedness and emergency response training, public health best practices, regional public health collaboration, and a perceived need for information sharing.

Governance typology: a consensus classification of state-local health department relationships

CONTEXT

Public health practitioners and researchers often refer to state public health systems as being centralized, decentralized, shared, or mixed. These categories refer to governance of the local public health units within the state and whether they operate under the authority of the state government, local government, shared state and local governance, or a mix of governance structures within the state.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes the development of an objective method of classifying states as centralized, decentralized, shared, or mixed. We also discuss some initial analyses that have been conducted to identify how public health resources and activities vary across states with different classifications.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

State health agencies.

PARTICIPANTS

Survey respondents were organizational leaders from all 50 state health agencies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Total full-time equivalent employees, total health agency expenditures, expenditures on clinical services, and provision of clinical services.

RESULTS

Centralized state health agencies employ more full-time equivalent employees, have higher total expenditures, and provide more clinical services than decentralized state health agencies. Although higher expenditures on clinical services were observed, these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to take governance classification into account when investigating variation in services, resources, or performance of governmental public health systems. As public health systems and services researchers seek to identify best practices in the organization of public health systems, consistent definition of different types of organization is critical. This system provides an objective and reliable system for classifying governance relationships that allows for comparisons that are meaningful to both practitioners and researchers.