The development and application of a public health skills assessment tool for use in primary care organisations

We compared the work settings and “community-oriented clinical practice” of Community Medicine (CM) specialists and family physicians/general practitioners (FP). We conducted secondary data analysis of the 2004 National Physician Survey (NPS) to examine main work setting and clinical activity reported by 154 CM (40% of eligible CM in Canada) and 11,041 FP (36% of eligible FP in Canada). Text data from the specialist questionnaire related to “most common conditions that you treat” were extracted from the Master database for CM specialists, and subjected to thematic analysis and coded. CM specialists were more likely than FP to engage in “community medicine/public health” (59.7% vs 15.3%); while the opposite was found for primary care (13% vs. 78.2%). CM specialists were less likely to indicate a main work setting of private office/clinic/community health centre/community hospital than were FP (13.6% vs. 75.6%). Forty-five percent of CM provided a response to “most common conditions treated” with the remainder either leaving the item blank or indicating that they did not treat individual patients. The most frequently named conditions in rank order were: psychiatric disorders; public health program/activity; respiratory problems; hypertension; and metabolic disorders (diabetes). There is some overlap in the professional activities and work settings of CM specialists and FP. The “most commonly treated conditions” suggest that some CM specialists may be practicing primary care as part of the Royal College career path of “community-oriented clinical practice.” However the “most commonly treated conditions” do not specifically indicate an orientation of that practice towards “an emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention” as also specified by the Royal College for that CM career path. This raises questions about the appropriateness of the current training requirements and career paths as delineated for CM specialists by the Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada. Bhopal R. Public health medicine and primary health care: convergent, divergent, or parallel paths? J Epidemiol Community Health 1995; 49:113-6. Pettersen BJ, Johnsen R. More physicians in public health: less public health work? Scan J Public Health 2005; 33:91-8. Stanwell-Smith R. Public health medicine in transition. J Royal Society of Medicine 2001; 94(7):319-21.

Download Full-text

Development of a Rapid Risk and Impact Assessment Tool to Enhance Response to Environmental Emergencies in the Early Stages of a Disaster: A Tool Developed by the European Multiple Environmental Threats Emergency NETwork (EMETNET) Project

International Journal of Disaster Risk Science ◽

10.1007/s13753-021-00352-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Emma-Jane Goode ◽

Eirian Thomas ◽

Owen Landeg ◽

Raquel Duarte-Davidson ◽

Lisbeth Hall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Impact Assessment ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

The European Union ◽

Protection Mechanism ◽

Environmental Threats ◽

Environmental Disasters ◽

Early Stages ◽

Potential Risks ◽

The Impact

AbstractEvery year, numerous environmental disasters and emergencies occur across the globe with far-reaching impacts on human health and the environment. The ability to rapidly assess an environmental emergency to mitigate potential risks and impacts is paramount. However, collating the necessary evidence in the early stages of an emergency to conduct a robust risk assessment is a major challenge. This article presents a methodology developed to help assess the risks and impacts during the early stages of such incidents, primarily to support the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism but also the wider global community in the response to environmental emergencies. An online rapid risk and impact assessment tool has also been developed to promote enhanced collaboration between experts who are working remotely, considering the impact of a disaster on the environment and public health in the short, medium, and long terms. The methodology developed can support the appropriate selection of experts and assets to be deployed to affected regions to ensure that potential public health and environmental risks and impacts are mitigated whenever possible. This methodology will aid defensible decision making, communication, planning, and risk management, and presents a harmonized understanding of the associated impacts of an environmental emergency.

Download Full-text

Linkage to primary-care public health facilities for cardiovascular disease prevention: a community-based cohort study from urban slums in India

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045997 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (8) ◽

pp. e045997

Author(s):

Abhijit Pakhare ◽

Ankur Joshi ◽

Rasha Anwar ◽

Khushbu Dubey ◽

Sanjeev Kumar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Primary Care ◽

Multivariate Analysis ◽

Urban Slum ◽

Primary Care Providers ◽

Health Facilities ◽

Care Providers ◽

Community Based ◽

Public Health Facilities ◽

Care Facilities

ObjectivesHypertension and diabetes mellitus are important risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Once identified with these conditions, individuals need to be linked to primary healthcare system for initiation of lifestyle modifications, pharmacotherapy and maintenance of therapies to achieve optimal blood pressure and glycaemic control. In the current study, we evaluated predictors and barriers for non-linkage to primary-care public health facilities for CVD risk reduction.MethodsWe conducted a community-based longitudinal study in 16 urban slum clusters in central India. Community health workers (CHWs) in each urban slum cluster screened all adults, aged 30 years or more for hypertension and diabetes, and those positively screened were sought to be linked to urban primary health centres (UPHCs). We performed univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent predictors for non-linkage to primary-care providers. We conducted in-depth assessment in 10% of all positively screened, to identify key barriers that potentially prevented linkages to primary-care facilities.ResultsOf 6174 individuals screened, 1451 (23.5%; 95% CI 22.5 to 24.6) were identified as high risk and required linkage to primary-care facilities. Out of these, 544 (37.5%) were linked to public primary-care facilities and 259 (17.8%) to private providers. Of the remaining, 506 (34.9%) did not get linked to any provider and 142 (9.8%) defaulted after initial linkages (treatment interrupters). On multivariate analysis, as compared with those linked to public primary-care facilities, those who were not linked had age less than 45 years (OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 3.5)), were in lowest wealth quintile (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.9), resided beyond a kilometre from UPHC (OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.4) and were engaged late by CHWs (OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7)). Despite having comparable knowledge level, denial about their risk status and lack of family support were key barriers in this group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates feasibility of CHW-based strategy in promoting linkages to primary-care facilities.

Download Full-text