scholarly journals Extending the Use of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antibiotic Use and Resistance Surveillance Data

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s233-s233
Author(s):  
Muzna Mirza ◽  
Lauren Wattenmaker ◽  
Odion Clunis ◽  
Wendy Vance ◽  
Shunte Moon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Targeted Prevention ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
State Health ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infection ◽  
Healthcare Associated

Background: The CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) is the nation’s most widely used healthcare-associated infection (HAI) and antibiotic use and resistance (AUR) surveillance system. More than 22,000 healthcare facilities report data to the NHSN. The NHSN data are used by facilities, the CDC, health departments, the CMS, among other organizations and agencies. In 2017, the CDC updated the NHSN Agreement to Participate and Consent (Agreement), completed by facilities, broadening health department access to NHSN data and extending eligibility for data use agreements (DUAs) to local and territorial health departments. DUAs enable access to NHSN data reported by facilities in the health department’s jurisdiction and have been available to state health departments since 2011. The updated agreement also enables the CDC to provide NHSN data to health departments for targeted prevention projects outbreak investigations and responses. Methods: We reviewed the current NHSN DUA inventory to assess the extent to which health departments use the NHSN’s new data access provisions and used semistructured interviews with health department staff, conducted via emails, phone, and in person conversations, to identify and describe their NHSN data uses. Results: As of late 2019, the NHSN has DUAs with health departments in 17 states, 7 local health departments (including municipalities and counties), and 1 US territory. The NHSN also has received requests from 2 state health departments for data supporting HAI prevention projects. Health departments with DUAs described improved relationships with facilities in their jurisdictions because of new opportunities to offer NHSN data analysis assistance to facilities. One local health department analyzed their NHSN carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) data to identify (1) facilities in its jurisdiction with comparatively high CRE infection burden and (2) geographic areas to target for a CRE isolate submission program. Outreach to facilities with high CRE burden led to enrollment of 15 clinical laboratories into a voluntary isolate submission program to analyze CRE isolates for additional characterization. Examples of health departments’ use of data for action include: notifying facilities with high standardized infection ratios (SIRs) and sharing Targeted Assessment for Prevention (TAP) reports. Conclusions: The NHSN’s role as a shared surveillance resource has expanded in multiple public health jurisdictions as a result of new data access provisions. Health departments are using NHSN data in their programmatic responses to HAI and AR challenges. New access to NHSN data is enabling public health jurisdictions to assess problems and opportunities, provide guidance for prevention projects, and support program evaluations.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Health Department Authorities to Assist Healthcare Facilities with Outbreaks or High HAI Rates—Preliminary Assessment, 2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s244-s244
Author(s):  
Nijika Shrivastwa ◽  
Joseph Perz ◽  
Jennifer C. Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Health Department ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
State Health ◽  
State Health Department ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
Facility Level ◽  
Targeted Assistance ◽  
Healthcare Associated

Background: Health departments have been increasingly called upon to monitor healthcare associated-infections (HAIs) at the hospital- or facility-level and provide targeted assistance when high rates are identified. Health department capacity to effectively respond to these types of signals depends not only on technical expertise but also the legal and regulatory authority to intervene. Methods: We reviewed annual reports describing HAI and antibiotic resistance (HAI/AR) activities from CDC-funded HAI/AR programs for August 2017 through July 2018. We performed a qualitative data analysis on all 50 state health department responses to a question about their regulatory and legal authority to intervene or assist facilities without invitation when outbreaks are suspected (as determined by the health department) or high HAI rates have been identified (eg, based on NHSN data). Results: When an outbreak is identified, 31 health departments (62%) indicated that they have the authority to intervene without invitation from a facility and 8 (16%) did not specify. Among the 11 health departments (22%) that indicated that they do not have this authority, 5 (45%) states noted that they operate under decentralized systems in which the local health department can intervene in outbreak situations and the state health department is available to assist. When a health department identifies high HAI rates, 14 health departments (28%) indicated that they have the authority to intervene without invitation, 22 (44%) indicated that they do not, and 14 (28%) did not specify. Among those in the latter categories, 3 stated they can work through their local health departments, which do have this authority and 8 described working through partners (eg, State Hospital Association, n = 3 or State Healthcare Licensing Agency, n = 5). Discussion: Assistance from state health departments (eg, HAI/AR programs) in the context of outbreaks and high HAI rates has value that is usually well recognized and welcomed by healthcare facilities. Nonetheless, there are occasions when a health department might need to exert its authority to intervene. The preliminary analysis described here indicated that this authority was more commonly self-reported in the context of outbreaks than when high HAI rates are identified. These 2 situations are connected, as high rates might be indicative of unrecognized or unreported outbreak activity, and these issues may benefit from further analysis.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Shifting Landscape of Healthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistant Infection Reporting Policy, 2005–2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s389-s389
Author(s):  
Jeremy Goodman ◽  
Samuel Clasp ◽  
Arjun Srinivasan ◽  
Elizabeth Mothershed ◽  
Seth Kroop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Department ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infection ◽  
Candida Auris ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Notifiable Diseases ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Resistant Infection ◽  
Healthcare Associated

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a serious threat to patient safety; they account for substantial morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Healthcare practices, such as inappropriate use of antimicrobials, can also amplify the problem of antimicrobial resistance. Data collected to target HAI prevention and antimicrobial stewardship efforts and measure progress are an important resource for assuring transparency and accountability in healthcare, tracking adverse outcomes, investigating healthcare practices that may spread or protect against disease, detecting and responding to the spread of resistant pathogens, preventing infections, and saving lives. Methods: We discuss 3 healthcare-associated infection and antimicrobial Resistant infection (HAI-AR) reporting types: NHSN HAI-AR reporting, reportable diseases, and nationally notifiable diseases. HAI-AR reporting requirements outline facilities and data to report to NHSN and the health department to comply with state laws. Reportable diseases are those that facilities, providers, and laboratories are required to report to the health department. Nationally notifiable diseases are those reported by health departments to the CDC for nationwide surveillance and analysis as determined by Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and the CDC. Data presented are based on state and federal policy; NHSN data are based on CDC reporting statistics. Results: Since the 2005 launch of the CDC NHSN and publication of federal advisory committee HAI reporting guidance, most states have established policies stipulating healthcare facilities in their jurisdiction report HAIs and resistant infections to the NHSN to gain access to those data, increasing from 2 states in 2005, to 18 in 2010, and to 36 states, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia in 2019. Reporting policies and NHSN participation expanded greatly following the 2011 inception of CMS HAI quality reporting requirements, with several states aligning state requirements with CMS reporting. States listing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) as a reportable disease increased from 7 in 2013 to 41 states and the District of Columbia in 2019. Vancomycin-intermediate and vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VISA/VRSA) was added as a nationally notifiable disease in 2004, carbapenemase-producing CRE (CP-CRE) was added in 2018, and Candida auris clinical infections were added in 2019. The CDC and most jurisdictions with HAI reporting mandates issue public reports based on aggregate state data and/or facility-level data. States may also alert healthcare providers and health departments of emerging threats and to assist in notifying patients of potential exposure. Conclusions: Through efforts by health departments, facilities, patient advocates, partners, the CDC, and other federal agencies, HAI-AR reporting has steadily increased. Although reporting laws and data uses vary between jurisdictions, data provided serves as valuable tools to inform prevention.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals 965. Partnering with State Health Departments: A Road Map for Collaboration Using Public Health Enhanced HIV/AIDS Reporting System (eHARS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S512-S513
Author(s):  
John R Bassler ◽  
Emily B Levitan ◽  
Lauren Ostrenga ◽  
Danita C Crear ◽  
Kendra L Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Distributed Data ◽  
Summary Statistics ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
State Health ◽  
State Health Department ◽  
Data Network ◽  
Hiv Aids

Abstract Background Academic and public health partnerships are a critical component of the Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America (EHE). The Enhanced HIV/AIDS Reporting System (eHARS) is a standardized document-based surveillance database used by state health departments to collect and manage case reports, lab reports, and other documentation on persons living with HIV. Innovative analysis of this data can inform targeted, evidence-based interventions to achieve EHE objectives. We describe the development of a distributed data network strategy at an academic institution in partnership with public health departments to identify geographic differences in time to HIV viral suppression after HIV diagnosis using eHARS data. Figure 1. Distributed Data Network Methods This project was an outgrowth of work developed at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for AIDS Research (UAB CFAR) and existing relationships with the state health departments of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. At a project start-up meeting which included study investigators and state epidemiologists, core objectives and outcome measures were established, key eHARS variables were identified, and regulatory and confidentiality procedures were examined. The study methods were approved by the UAB Institutional Review Board (IRB) and all three state health department IRBs. Results A common data structure and data dictionary across the three states were developed. Detailed analysis protocols and statistical code were developed by investigators in collaboration with state health departments. Over the course of multiple in-person and virtual meetings, the program code was successfully piloted with one state health department. This generated initial summary statistics, including measures of central tendency, dispersion, and preliminary survival analysis. Conclusion We developed a successful academic and public health partnership creating a distributed data network that allows for innovative research using eHARS surveillance data while protecting sensitive health information. Next, state health departments will transmit summary statistics to UAB for combination using meta-analytic techniques. This approach can be adapted to inform delivery of targeted interventions at a regional and national level. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Leveraging Limited Resources Through Cross-Jurisdictional Sharing: Influences on Breastfeeding Rates

2020 ◽  
pp. 089033442096363
Author(s):  
M. Elizabeth Gyllstrom ◽  
Marcia Burton McCoy ◽  
Gianfranco Pezzini ◽  
Adam Atherly
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Relative Rate ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Rate Of Change ◽  
Local Health Department ◽  
Breastfeeding Initiation ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Health Boards

Background Cross-jurisdictional sharing is gaining traction as an option for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of public health services in local health departments. Research aim Assess whether breastfeeding initiation among participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children changed with the addition of a trained breastfeeding specialist funded by cross-jurisdictional integration. Methods A longitudinal retrospective comparative difference in difference design using state-based program data, pre- and post-integration was undertaken. Three local county health departments ( n = 5) that fully integrated into one Community Health Board during January 2015, and four neighboring Community Health Boards ( n = 4) that did not integrate, were included. Results Controlling for confounders and interactions, the relative rate of change over time in breastfeeding initiation rates was greater in the integrated jurisdiction than neighboring Community Health Boards, but not statistically significant. When the integrated Community Health Board’s original three local health departments were considered separately, the relative rate of change over time in breastfeeding rates was greater for one local health department in comparison to three neighbor Community Health Boards ( p = .037, .048, and .034, respectively). Conclusions The addition of a specialized breastfeeding nutritionist led to improved breastfeeding initiation rates. The increase was significant only in the largest original local health department, which also had the lowest breastfeeding initiation rate pre-merger. The greatest positive change was seen in this local health department where the specialist staff was physically located. Public health staff specialization can lead to increases in economic efficiency and in improved delivery of public health services.

Assessing the Capacity of State Physical Activity Programs—A Baseline Perspective

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Vehige Calise ◽  
Sarah Martin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Physical Inactivity ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
State Health ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Prevalence Of Obesity ◽  
Physical Activity Programs

Background:Physical inactivity is one of the top 3 risk factors associated with an increased prevalence of obesity and other chronic diseases. The public health infrastructure positions state health departments to address physical inactivity. To examine preparedness, all 50 health departments were assessed, using the 5 benchmarks developed by CDC for physical activity and public health practice, on their capacity to administer physical activity programs.Methods:States were scored on a 5-point scale for each benchmark. The top 2 high and low scores were combined to create 2 categories. Exact Chi-square analyses were performed.Results:States with CDC obesity funding scored higher on 4 benchmarks than states without. States with a state physical activity plan scored higher on all benchmarks than states without. States with a physical activity coalition scored higher on 2 benchmarks than states without.Conclusions:At the time of the assessment, approximately 20% of state physical activity programs could have improved in the use of evidence-based strategies and planning and evaluation approaches. Furthermore, many programs seemed to have limited sustainability. The findings of this report serve as a baseline of the capacity and infrastructure of state health department physical activity programs.

scholarly journals Regional Governance of Syndromic Surveillance for the Texas Gulf Coast

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley McNeely ◽  
Eunice R. Santos ◽  
Biru Yang ◽  
Kiley Allred ◽  
Raouf R. Arafat
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Syndromic Surveillance ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Regional Governance ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Local Health Departments ◽  
Syndromic Surveillance System

ObjectiveDescribe and explain the transition of the syndromic surveillanceprogram at the Houston Health Department (HHD) from being alocally managed and aging system to an ESSENCE system governedby a regional Consortium of public health agencies and stakeholdersin the 13-county area of the southeast Texas.IntroductionSyndromic surveillance systems are large and complex technologyprojects that increasingly require large investments of financial andpolitical capital to be sustainable. What was once a minor surveillancetool in the mid-2000s has evolved into a program that is regardedas valuable to public health yet is increasingly difficult to maintainand operate for local health departments. The Houston HealthDepartment installed a syndromic surveillance system (SyS) sixyears before Meaning Use became known to healthcare communities.The system chosen at the time was the Real-time Outbreak DiseaseSurveillance System (RODS) which, at the time and for its purpose,was a suitable platform for syndromic surveillance. During the past13 years however, maintaining, operating, and growing a SyS by alocal health department has become increasingly difficult. Inclusionin Meaningful Use elevated the importance and profile of syndromicsurveillance such that network growth, transparency of operations,ease of data sharing, and cooperation with other state systems inTexas became program imperatives.MethodsWith support from the informatics group at Tarrant County PublicHealth (TCPH) in the form of mentoring, HHD devised a two prongstrategy to re-invigorate the syndromic program. The first was toreplace RODS with ESSENCE from Johns Hopkins Applied PhysicsLaboratory (JH/APL). The second was to strengthen the regionalnetwork by creating a governance structure that included outsideagencies and stakeholders. The product of this second effort wasthe creation of the Syndromic Surveillance Consortium of SoutheastTexas (SSCSeT) on the Communities of Practice model1usingparliamentary procedure2.ResultsAcquiring ESSENCE and forming SSCSeT were necessary stepsfor the continuing operation of the SyS. The Consortium includesmembers from local health jurisdictions, health care providers, healthpolicy advocates, academicians, and data aggregators. Created asa democratic society, SSCSeT wrote its constitution and by-laws,voted in officers, formed working groups and has begun developingpolicies. The Consortium is cooperating with the Texas Departmentof State Health Services (DSHS) as well as TCPH. Having ESSENCEwill ensure the HHD-SyS will conform to standards being developedin the state and provide a robust syndromic platform for the partnersof the Consortium.ConclusionsSyndromic systems operated by local health departments canadapt to regulatory changes by growing their networks and engagingregional stakeholders using the Communities of Practice model.

Improving Public Health Preparedness Capacity Measurement: Development of the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 578-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary V. Davis ◽  
Glen P. Mays ◽  
James Bellamy ◽  
Christine A. Bevc ◽  
Cammie Marti
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Local Health Department ◽  
Kappa Statistics ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Public Health Preparedness ◽  
Assessment Survey ◽  
Legal Infrastructure

AbstractObjectiveTo address limitations in measuring the preparedness capacities of health departments, we developed and tested the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey (PCAS).MethodsPreexisting instruments and a modified 4-cycle Delphi panel process were used to select instrument items. Pilot test data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. Kappa statistics were calculated to examine rater agreement within items. The final instrument was fielded with 85 North Carolina health departments and a national matched comparison group of 248 health departments.ResultsFactor analysis identified 8 initial domains: communications, surveillance and investigation, plans and protocols, workforce and volunteers, legal infrastructure, incident command, exercises and events, and corrective action. Kappa statistics and z scores indicated substantial to moderate agreement among respondents in 7 domains. Cronbach α coefficients ranged from 0.605 for legal infrastructure to 0.929 for corrective action. Mean scores and standard deviations were also calculated for each domain and ranged from 0.41 to 0.72, indicating sufficient variation in the sample to detect changes over time.ConclusionThe PCAS is a useful tool to determine how well health departments are performing on preparedness measures and identify opportunities for future preparedness improvements. Future survey implementation will incorporate recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:578–584)

Epidemiology Surveillance and Capacity Improvement: A Characterization of Texas, 2017

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Kahler W. Stone ◽  
Marilyn Felkner ◽  
Eric Garza ◽  
Maria Perez-Patron ◽  
Cason Schmit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Local Health ◽  
State Health ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
State Health Department ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Texas Department ◽  
Funding Programs

Abstract Objectives: In response to increasing caseloads of foodborne illnesses and high consequence infectious disease investigations, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) requested funding from the Texas Legislature in 2013 and 2015 for a new state-funded epidemiologist (SFE) program. Methods: Primary cross-sectional survey data were collected from 32 of 40 local health departments (LHDs) via an online instrument and analyzed to quantify roles, responsibilities, and training of epidemiologists in Texas in 2017 and compared to similar state health department assessments. Results: Sixty-six percent of SFEs had epidemiology-specific training (eg, master’s in public health) compared to 45% in state health department estimates. For LHDs included in this study, the mean number of epidemiologists per 100 000 was 0.73 in medium LHDs and 0.46 in large LHDs. SFE positions make up approximately 40% of the LHD epidemiology workforce of all sizes and 56% of medium-sized LHD epidemiology staff in Texas specifically. Conclusions: Through this program, DSHS increased epidemiology capacity almost twofold from 0.28 to 0.47 epidemiologists per 100 000 people. These findings suggest that capacity funding programs like this improve epidemiology capacity in local jurisdictions and should be considered in other regions to improve general public health preparedness and epidemiology capacity.

Using Public Health Legal Counsel Effectively: Beliefs, Barriers and Opportunities for Training

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. 61-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Kaufman ◽  
Susan Allan ◽  
Jennifer Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
The State ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
State Health ◽  
Public Health Agencies ◽  
Health Agencies ◽  
Legal Staff

Laws, ordinances, regulations, and executive orders create the powers and duties of public health agencies and modify the complex community conditions that affect health. Appropriately trained legal counsel serving as legal advisors on the health officer's team facilitate clear understanding of the legal basis for public health interventions and access to legal tools for carrying them out.Legal counsel serve public health agencies via different organizational arrangements — e.g., internal staff counsel, external counsel from the state attorney general's (AG) office, state health department, county or city, or private counsel under contract, or in combination. As of 2011, most state health departments (63%) employ their own counsel, and 56% use AG counsel, while 17% contract with independent attorneys; most local health departments (66%) work with attorneys and legal staff assigned by local government, by the state health agency (23%), or contract with outside attorneys and legal staff (15%).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document