Overview of the Public Health Accreditation Board

Bender, Kaye; Kronstadt, Jessica; Wilcox, Robin; Lee, Travis Parker

doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e3182a778a0

Cited by 28 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Volunteer peer site visitors review the documentation and assess its conformity with the measures. The PHAB Accreditation Committee reviews the site visit report and determines whether the applicant will be accredited at that time or be required to develop and implement an action plan (4). Using this process, health departments in 45 states and the District of Columbia have applied for accreditation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation ― United States, 2016

Kronstadt¹,

Meit²,

Siegfried³

et al. 2016

MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, the nonprofit Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) launched the national, voluntary public health accreditation program for state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments. As of May 2016, 134 health departments have achieved 5-year accreditation through PHAB and 176 more have begun the formal process of pursuing accreditation. In addition, Florida, a centralized state in which the employees of all 67 local health departments are employees of the state, achieved accreditation for the entire integrated local public health department system in the state. PHAB-accredited health departments range in size from a small Indiana health department that serves approximately 17,000 persons to the much larger California Department of Public Health, which serves approximately 38 million persons. Collectively, approximately half the U.S. population, or nearly 167 million persons, is covered by an accredited health department. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia now have at least one nationally accredited health department. In a survey conducted through a contract with a social science research organization during 2013-2016, >90% of health departments that had been accredited for 1 year reported that accreditation has stimulated quality improvement and performance improvement opportunities, increased accountability and transparency, and improved management processes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation ― United States, 2016

Kronstadt¹,

Meit²,

Siegfried³

et al. 2016

MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The national public health accreditation program, operated by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) and launched in 2011, uses the 10 essential services as a framework for the 12 domains around which it has established national consensus standards and measures (2 additional domains were added to the 10 essential services to address administrative management and capacity and relationship with governing entities). 19 PHLP’s complementary legal assessment on public health department accreditation revealed that 7 states’ laws specifically reference accreditation, either PHAB accreditation or a state accreditation program. 5,* Three states (Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina) also reference fundamental activities in law.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Public Health Enabling Authorities: Results of a Fundamental Activities Assessment Examining Core and Essential Services

Hoss

Menon

Corso

2016

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Public health enabling authorities establish the legal foundation for financing, organizing, and delivering public health services. State laws vary in terms of the content, depth, and breadth of these fundamental public health activities. Given this variance, the Institute of Medicine has identified state public health laws as an area that requires further examination. To respond to this call for further examination, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Public Health Law Program conducted a fundamental activities legal assessment on state public health laws. Objective The goal of the legal assessment was to examine state laws referencing frameworks representing public health department fundamental activities (ie, core and essential services) in an effort to identify, catalog, and describe enabling authorities of state governmental public health systems. Design In 2013, Public Health Law Program staff compiled a list of state statutes and regulations referencing different commonly-recognized public health frameworks of fundamental activities. The legal assessment included state fundamental activities laws available on WestlawNext as of July 2013. The results related to the 10 essential public health services and the 3 core public health functions were confirmed and updated in June 2016. Results Eighteen states reference commonly-recognized frameworks of fundamental activities in their laws. Thirteen states have listed the 10 essential public health services in their laws. Eight of these states have also referenced the 3 core public health functions in their laws. Five states reference only the core public health functions. Conclusions Several states reference fundamental activities in their state laws, particularly through use of the essential services framework. Further work is needed to capture the public health laws and practices of states that may be performing fundamental activities but without reference to a common framework.

show abstract

“…Two notable examples include: the National Public Health Performance Standards Program designed to assess and engage the public health system in improving public health services, 9 and the development and implementation of a national accreditation program for public health departments. 10 Although these are public health practice endeavors, the potential for contribution to the science base and understanding of the public health system has served as a strong underlying principle for both efforts. A third example, the CDC-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers, has prompted much-needed research to improve preparedness and response systems.…”

Section: An Evolving Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%