Quality Improvement and Accreditation

Bender, Kaye; Halverson, Paul K.

doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e3181c2c7b8

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A national voluntary accreditation program for public health agencies in the United States, established in 2007 through the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB), has direct and indirect effects on EBPH (14). The accreditation process intersects with EBPH on at least three levels.…”

Section: Why Evidence-based Public Health Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Brownson

Fielding

Green

2018

Annu. Rev. Public Health

237

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan deliver and evaluate the “preventive dose” of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. While there is general agreement on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity-building will foster more effective public health practice.

show abstract

Section: Why Evidence-based Public Health Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Brownson

Fielding

Green

2018

Annu. Rev. Public Health

237

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implementation of and adherence to accreditation principles and standards can lead to informed and evidence-based decision making, competitiveness for funding, workforce improvement, and, in turn, increased public recognition of LHDs’ role and value. 1,5–8 PHAB-accredited health departments already report that accreditation has led to numerous benefits. These benefits include health departments’ improved collaboration with other health departments and with community partners, enhanced sense of accountability, improved awareness concerning the need for engagement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives, and shared understanding of organizational strengths and weaknesses outlined as a result of formal strategic planning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Boards of Health Characteristics Influencing Support for Health Department Accreditation

Shah

Sotnikov

Leep

et al. 2018

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Local boards of health (LBoHs) serve as the governance body for 71% of local health departments (LHDs). Purpose To assess the impact of LBoH governance functions and other characteristics on the level of LBoH support of LHD accreditation. Methods Data from 394 LHDs that participated in the 2015 Local Boards of Health Survey were used for computing summative scores for LBoHs for domains of taxonomy and performing logistic regression analyses in 2016. Results Increased odds of an LBoH directing, encouraging, or supporting LHD accreditation activities were significantly associated with (a) a higher overall combined score measuring performance of governance functions and presence of other LBoH characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05; P < .001); (b) a higher combined score for the Governance Functions subscale (AOR = 1.06; P < .01); (c) the “continuous improvement” governance function (AOR = 1.15; P < .001); and (d) characteristics and strengths such as board composition (eg, LBoH size, type of training, elected vs nonelected members), community engagement and input, and the absence of an elected official on the board (AOR = 1.14; P = .02). Conclusions LBoHs are evenly split by thirds in their attention to Public Health Accreditation Board accreditation among the following categories: (a) encouraged or supported, (b) discussed but made no recommendations, and (c) did not discuss. This split might indicate that they are depending on the professional leadership of the LHD to make the decision or that there is a lack of awareness. The study findings have policy implications for both LBoHs and initiatives aimed at strengthening efforts to promote LHD accreditation.

show abstract

“…1–6 The Public Health Accreditation Board was established in 2007 to manage and promote a national voluntary accreditation program for state, tribal, local, and territorial public health departments, a central tenet of which is continuous QI. 7 National organizations have developed materials and initiatives to promote QI, such as the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ (ASTHO’s) accreditation and performance improvement guide for state health agencies. In addition, the federal government implemented the National Public Health Improvement Initiative, a cooperative agreement program beginning in 2010 that is intended to institutionalize QI in 73 state, tribal, local, and territorial public health agencies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The barriers and drivers of QI implementation in public health are not well known or understood. Extending from prior research, 7,14–18 this study applied a QI implementation model from the medical field to assess the factors impacting QI by LHDs. A systemic application of conceptual framework for QI not previously used in public health could help better understand and identify the factors that influence the adoption of QI initiatives by LHDs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Driving the Adoption of Quality Improvement Initiatives in Local Health Departments

Luo

Sotnikov

McLees

et al. 2015

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Over the past decade, quality improvement (QI) has become a major focus in advancing the goal of improving performance of local health departments (LHDs). However, limited empirical data exists on the current implementation of QI initiatives in LHDs and factors associated with adoption of QI initiatives. Objectives (1) To examine the current implementation of QI implementation initiatives by LHDs and (2) to identify factors contributing to LHDs’ decision to implement QI initiatives. Methods In this study, a novel theoretical framework based on analysis of QI in medicine was applied to analyze QI by LHDs. LHDs’ QI adoption was assessed by the number of formal QI projects reported by LHDs that responded to module 1 of the 2010 National Profile of Local Health Department Study (Profile Study) conducted by the National Association of County & City Health Officials. The Profile Study data were merged with data from the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Area Resource Files and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ 2010 Survey. Logistic regression analyses were conducted using Stata 11 SVY procedure to account for the complex sampling design. Results The Profile Study data indicated that about 73% of the LHDs reported implementing 1 or more QI projects. LHDs with large jurisdiction population (>50 000), higher per capita public health expenditure, a designated QI staff member, or prior participation in performance improvement programs were more likely to have undertaken QI initiatives. Conclusion According to the Profile Study, more than a quarter of LHDs surveyed did not report implementing any formal QI projects. Greater investments in QI programs and designation of QI staff can be effective strategies to promote QI adoption. The validity of the definition of a formal QI project needs to be established. More research to identify the barriers to successful QI implementation at LHDs is also needed.

show abstract

Quality Improvement and Accreditation

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Local Boards of Health Characteristics Influencing Support for Health Department Accreditation

Factors Driving the Adoption of Quality Improvement Initiatives in Local Health Departments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About