An Automated Syphilis Serology Record Search and Review Algorithm to Prioritize Investigations by Health Departments

Clinical handover – the transfer between clinicians of responsibility and accountability for patients and their care (AMA 2006) – is a pivotal and high-risk communicative event in hospital practice. Studies focusing on critical incidents, mortality, risk and patient harm in hospitals have highlighted ineffective communication – including incomplete and unstructured clinical handovers – as a major contributing factor (NSW Health 2005; ACSQHC 2010). In Australia, as internationally, Health Departments and hospital management have responded by introducing standardised handover communication protocols. This paper problematises one such protocol – the ISBAR tool – and argues that the narrow understanding of communication on which such protocols are based may seriously constrain their ability to shape effective handovers. Based on analysis of audio-recorded shift-change clinical handovers between medical staff, we argue that handover communication must be conceptualised as inherently interactive and that attempts to describe, model and teach handover practice must recognise both informational and interactive communication strategies. By comparing the communicative performance of participants in authentic handover events we identify communication strategies that are more and less likely to lead to an effective handover and demonstrate the importance of focusing close up on communication to improve the quality and safety of healthcare interactions.

Download Full-text

The political background to arts in health

10.1093/oso/9780198792079.003.0003 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Daisy Fancourt

Keyword(s):

National Policy ◽

Health Departments ◽

Arts Funding ◽

Health And Wellbeing ◽

The Arts ◽

Policy And Strategy ◽

The Usa ◽

Political Background ◽

The Uk ◽

Arts In Health

In recent decades, there has been an increasing number of national policy and strategy papers discussing arts in health in countries around the world. Some of this activity has been driven by national arts bodies, championing the value of the arts in health and wellbeing and advocating for their inclusion within core arts funding and practice. Other activity has been led by health bodies, including health departments within governments and health services themselves. This chapter explores some of the most influential documents and considers their implication for research and practice. It draws on case studies of activity within Ireland, the UK, the USA, Australia, and Nordic countries.

Download Full-text

A Panel Evaluation of the Changes in the General Public’s Social-Media-Following of United States’ Public Health Departments during COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal of Primary Care & Community Health ◽

10.1177/2150132721995450 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 215013272199545

Author(s):

Areej Khokhar ◽

Aaron Spaulding ◽

Zuhair Niazi ◽

Sikander Ailawadhi ◽

Rami Manochakian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Social Media ◽

State Level ◽

The State ◽

Public Health Department ◽

Health Departments ◽

The Public ◽

Public Health Departments ◽

The Social ◽

The U.S

Importance: Social media is widely used by various segments of society. Its role as a tool of communication by the Public Health Departments in the U.S. remains unknown. Objective: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media following of the Public Health Departments of the 50 States of the U.S. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were collected by visiting the Public Health Department web page for each social media platform. State-level demographics were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention was utilized to collect information regarding the Governance of each State’s Public Health Department. Health rankings were collected from “America’s Health Rankings” 2019 Annual report from the United Health Foundation. The U.S. News and World Report Education Rankings were utilized to provide information regarding the public education of each State. Exposure: Data were pulled on 3 separate dates: first on March 5th (baseline and pre-national emergency declaration (NED) for COVID-19), March 18th (week following NED), and March 25th (2 weeks after NED). In addition, a variable identifying the total change across platforms was also created. All data were collected at the State level. Main Outcome: Overall, the social media following of the state Public Health Departments was very low. There was a significant increase in the public interest in following the Public Health Departments during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: With the declaration of National Emergency, there was a 150% increase in overall public following of the State Public Health Departments in the U.S. The increase was most noted in the Midwest and South regions of the U.S. The overall following in the pandemic “hotspots,” such as New York, California, and Florida, was significantly lower. Interesting correlations were noted between various demographic variables, health, and education ranking of the States and the social media following of their Health Departments. Conclusion and Relevance: Social media following of Public Health Departments across all States of the U.S. was very low. Though, the social media following significantly increased during the early course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it still remains low. Significant opportunity exists for Public Health Departments to improve social media use to engage the public better.

Download Full-text

Patterns of Cross-Sector Collaboration in Local Health Departments: A Cluster Analysis

Health Promotion Practice ◽

10.1177/1524839920972982 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 152483992097298

Author(s):

Alexis K. Grant

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Cluster Analysis ◽

Determinants Of Health ◽

Local Health ◽

Health Departments ◽

Local Health Departments ◽

Structural Determinants ◽

Cluster Assignment ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Top Executive

Local health departments (LHDs) are positioned to act as the community health strategist for their catchment area, which requires cross-sector collaboration. However, little research exists to understand how much and what types of cross-sector collaboration occur and its impact on LHD practice. Data from 490 LHDs who participated in the 2016 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey were analyzed to identify patterns of cross-sector collaboration among LHDs. In the survey, LHDs reported the presence of collaborative activities for each of 22 categories of organizations. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the types of organizations with which LHDs collaborate. Then, cluster analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the types of cross-sector collaboration, and cross-sectional analyses examined which LHD characteristics were associated with cluster assignment. LHDs collaborated most with traditional health care–oriented organizations, but less often with organizations focused on upstream determinants of health such as housing. Three distinct clusters represented collaboration patterns in LHDs: coordinators, networkers, and low-collaborators. LHDs who were low-collaborators were more likely to serve smaller populations, be unaccredited, have a smaller workforce, have a White top executive, and have a top executive without a graduate degree. These findings imply that public health practitioners should prioritize building bridges to a variety of organizations and engage in collaboration beyond information sharing. Furthermore, LHDs should prioritize accreditation and workforce development activities for supporting cross-sector collaboration. With these investments, the public health system can better address the social and structural determinants of health and promote health equity.

Download Full-text

Increasing Voluntary Public Health Reporting to the NHSN Antimicrobial Use Option

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.877 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (S1) ◽

pp. s296-s297

Author(s):

Heather Dubendris ◽

Amy Webb ◽

Melinda Neuhauser ◽

Arjun Srinivasan ◽

Wendy Wise ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽

Self Report ◽

Antimicrobial Use ◽

Health Departments ◽

Public Health Reporting ◽

Use Stage ◽

Education And Development ◽

Health Registry ◽

Over Time

Background: The CDC NHSN launched the Antimicrobial Use Option in 2011. The Antimicrobial Use Option allows users to implement risk-adjusted antimicrobial use benchmarking within- and between- facilities using the standardized antimicrobial administration ratio (SAAR) and to evaluate use over time. The SAAR can be used for public health surveillance and to guide an organization’s stewardship or quality improvement efforts. Methods: Antimicrobial Use Option enrollment grew through partner engagement, targeted education, and development of data benchmarking. We analyze enrollment over time and discuss key drivers of participation. Results: Initial 2011 Antimicrobial Use Option enrollment efforts awarded grant Funding: to 4 health departments. These health departments partnered with hospitals, which encouraged vendors to build infrastructure for electronic antimicrobial use reporting. CDC supported vendors through outreach and education. In 2012, with CDC support, Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center and partners began implementation of Antimicrobial Use Option reporting and validation of submitted data. These early efforts led to enrollment of 64 facilities by 2014 (Fig. 1). As awareness of the antimicrobial use option grew, we focused on facility engagement and development of benchmark metrics. A second round of grant Funding: in 2015 supported submission to the Antimicrobial Use Option from additional facilities by Funding: a vendor, a healthcare system, and an antimicrobial stewardship network. In 2015, CMS recognized the Antimicrobial Use Option as a choice for public health registry reporting under Meaningful Use Stage 3, resulting in an increase in participating hospitals. Antimicrobial Use Option enrollment increased in 2015 (n = 120), coinciding with national prioritization of antimicrobial stewardship. In 2016, the SAAR, was released in NHSN. We leveraged the SAAR to encourage participation from additional facilities and began quarterly calls to encourage continued participation from existing users. In 2016, the Department of Defense began submitting data to the Antimicrobial Use Option, resulting in 207 facilities enrolled in 2016, which grew to 616 in 2017. As of November 2019, 12 vendors self-report submission capabilities and 1,470 facilities, of ~6,800 active NHSN participants, are enrolled in the Antimicrobial Use Option. Two states have passed requirements regulating Antimicrobial Use Option reporting with Tennessee’s requirement going into effect in 2021. Conclusions: The Antimicrobial Use Option offers evidence that collaboration with partners, and leveraging of benchmarking metrics available to a national surveillance system can lead to increased voluntary participation in surveillance of high-priority public health data. Moving forward, we will continue expanding analytic capabilities and partner engagement.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Download Full-text

Actionable lessons for the US COVID vaccine program

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research ◽

10.1186/s13584-021-00452-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Gary L. Freed

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Local Health ◽

National Strategy ◽

Individual State ◽

Health Departments ◽

Local Health Departments ◽

Public Health Infrastructure ◽

Health Infrastructure ◽

The Us ◽

Vaccine Distribution

AbstractWhen attempting to provide lessons for other countries from the successful Israeli COVID-19 vaccine experience, it is important to distinguish between the modifiable and non-modifiable components identified in the article by Rosen, et al. Two specific modifiable components included in the Israeli program from which the US can learn are (a) a national (not individual state-based) strategy for vaccine distribution and administration and (b) a functioning public health infrastructure. As a federal government, the US maintains an often complex web of state and national authorities and responsibilities. The federal government assumed responsibility for the ordering, payment and procurement of COVID vaccine from manufacturers. In designing the subsequent steps in their COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration plan, the Trump administration decided to rely on the states themselves to determine how best to implement guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This strategy resulted in 50 different plans and 50 different systems for the dissemination of vaccine doses, all at the level of each individual state. State health departments were neither financed, experienced nor uniformly possessed the expertise to develop and implement such plans. A national strategy for the distribution, and the workforce for the provision, of vaccine beyond the state level, similar to that which occurred in Israel, would have provided for greater efficiency and coordination across the country. The US public health infrastructure was ill-prepared and ill-staffed to take on the responsibility to deliver > 450 million doses of vaccine in an expeditious fashion, even if supply of vaccine was available. The failure to adequately invest in public health has been ubiquitous across the nation at all levels of government. Since the 2008 recession, state and local health departments have lost > 38,000 jobs and spending for state public health departments has dropped by 16% per capita and spending for local health departments has fallen by 18%. Hopefully, COVID-19 will be a wakeup call to the US with regard to the need for both a national strategy to address public health emergencies and the well-maintained infrastructure to make it happen.

Download Full-text

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

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.1025 ◽

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

Download Full-text