Carman Angela L, Scutchfield F Douglas, McGladrey Margaret L, Vorbeck Jonathan
Health Behavior & Society, University of Kentucky, College of Public Health, Lexington, Kentucky (Dr Carman); Health, Services Research and Policy, Colleges of Public Health and Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky (Dr Scutchfield); Department of Sociology and Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts (Dr McGladrey); and Jessamine County Health Department, Nicholasville, Kentucky (Mr Vorbeck).
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2019 Sep/Oct;25(5):431-439. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000884.
Balancing competing imperatives of conserving scarce resources while improving organizational performance and community health, many local health departments (LHDs) have decided to pursue national, voluntary public health accreditation as a guide to improvement, but how to do so in the most efficient way possible remains a question for many.
This study employed a participatory action research approach in which LHD directors and accreditation coordinators from 7 accredited and 3 late-stage accreditation ready Kentucky LHD jurisdictions participated. Participants organized a set of accreditation deliverables into a chronological sequencing of each site's accreditation readiness process, which was then coded by researchers to identify similarities and differences.
All participating jurisdictions had all-hazards emergency operations plans and public health emergency operations plans while none had workforce development plans, quality improvement plans, or performance management plans before launching accreditation readiness activities. Also identified were the number of accreditation deliverables attempted, simultaneously, by each site and the importance of specific deliverables having a singular focus. Sequences of work on specific deliverables by the majority of participants included completing work on the quality improvement plan immediately, followed by the performance management plan, the Community Health Assessment before the Community Health Improvement Plan, and a strategic plan, followed by a workforce development plan. Factors influencing accreditation readiness processes, elements for sustaining processes, and lessons learned throughout the pursuit of accreditation were also provided by participants.
Recognizing the impact of staff availability, staff skill sets, training, and available financial resources on the pursuit of accreditation, participants determined that aggregating lessons learned into a flowchart highlighting the interconnectedness of accreditation deliverables could produce a road map for LHDs. Accreditation deliverables could be attempted in a logical, efficient order particularly valuable to small LHDs with limited resources and yet adaptable for those jurisdictions able to devote more resources to the process.
在平衡节约稀缺资源、提高组织绩效和社区健康等相互竞争的要求时,许多地方卫生部门(LHDs)决定寻求国家自愿公共卫生认证作为改进指南,但如何以最有效的方式做到这一点对许多部门来说仍是一个问题。
本研究采用参与式行动研究方法,来自肯塔基州7个已获得认证和3个处于后期认证准备阶段的LHD辖区的主任和认证协调员参与其中。参与者将一套认证交付成果按照每个地点认证准备过程的时间顺序进行排列,然后由研究人员进行编码以识别异同。
所有参与辖区都有全灾种应急行动预案和公共卫生应急行动预案,但在开展认证准备活动之前,没有一个辖区有劳动力发展计划、质量改进计划或绩效管理计划。还确定了每个地点同时尝试的认证交付成果数量以及特定交付成果专注单一重点的重要性。大多数参与者在特定交付成果上的工作顺序包括立即完成质量改进计划的工作,其次是绩效管理计划、在社区健康改进计划之前进行社区健康评估、制定战略计划,最后是劳动力发展计划。参与者还提供了影响认证准备过程的因素、维持过程的要素以及在整个认证过程中吸取的经验教训。
认识到人员可用性、员工技能集、培训和可用财政资源对认证工作的影响,参与者确定将吸取的经验教训汇总到一个突出认证交付成果相互关联性的流程图中,可以为地方卫生部门制定路线图。认证交付成果可以按照逻辑、高效的顺序进行尝试,这对资源有限的小型地方卫生部门特别有价值,同时也适用于那些能够在该过程中投入更多资源的辖区。