scholarly journals Prioritization of Public Health Emergency Preparedness Funding Among Local Health Departments Preceding the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings From NACCHO's 2019 National Profile of Local Health Departments

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-217
Author(s):  
Aaron A. Alford ◽  
Karla Feeser ◽  
Hall Kellie ◽  
Laura Biesiadecki
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Local Health Departments ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness ◽  
National Profile

scholarly journals Enhancing Emergency Preparedness and Response Systems: Correlates of Collaboration between Local Health Departments and School Districts

2014 ◽  
Vol 129 (6_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberley I. Shoaf ◽  
Melissa M. Kelley ◽  
Kaitlin O'Keefe ◽  
Katharine D. Arrington ◽  
Michael L. Prelip
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
School Systems ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Local Health Departments ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
The Future ◽  
Emergency Preparedness And Response ◽  
General Experience

Objective. Collaboration between existing components of the public health system is important for protecting public health and promoting community resilience. We describe the factors that promote collaborative emergency preparedness and response activities between local health departments (LHDs) and school systems. Methods. We gathered data from a multistage, stratified random sample of 750 LHDs nationwide. Utilizing a mailed invitation, we recruited respondents to participate in an online questionnaire. We calculated descriptive and inferential statistics. Results. The majority of LHDs collaborated with school systems for emergency preparedness and response activities and most indicated they were likely to collaborate in the future. Characteristics of the jurisdiction, general experience and perceptions of collaboration, and characteristics of the preparedness collaboration itself predicted future collaboration. Conclusion. Our results help us understand the nature of collaborations between LHDs and school systems on emergency preparedness and response activities, which can be used to identify priority areas for developing successful and sustainable joint efforts in the future. By focusing on the perceived value of collaboration and building on existing non-preparedness partnering, communities can increase the likelihood of ongoing successful LHD-school system emergency preparedness collaborations.

State, Territorial, and Local Health Departments’ Reporting of Partnership Strength Before and After the H1N1 Response

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 580-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen E. Kun ◽  
John Zimmerman ◽  
Dale A. Rose ◽  
Stephanie Rubel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Ordinal Scale ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Local Health Departments ◽  
Influenza A H1n1 ◽  
Before And After ◽  
K 12

AbstractIntroductionResearch has shown that partnerships between public health agencies, service providers, and other key stakeholders can expand resources and facilitate focus on community health issues more effectively than can any agency or organization acting alone. There is, however, little empirical evidence drawn from actual public health emergency responses to support this claim. The US response to novel influenza A (H1N1) virus provided the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the opportunity to explore whether, and the extent to which, state, local and territorial health departments strengthened partnerships with key partner agencies and sectors.MethodsParticipants included the CDC Public Health Emergency Response (PHER) grantees comprised of 62 state, territorial and local health departments. PHER grantees completed an assessment instrument in May 2011, including questions asking them to rate their partnership strength (on a four-point ordinal scale) with six types of partners before and after the H1N1 response. Grantees additionally reported if and how PHER funding contributed to enhancing the strength of these partnerships.ResultsSixty-one PHER grantees (61/62, 98%) completed the assessment instrument's partnerships section. PHER grantees reported that their partnerships with retail pharmacies were most strengthened (mean increase = 1.11 (on a four-point ordinal scale), SD = .82). This was followed by schools (K-12) (mean increase = .90, SD = .58); private medical providers (mean increase = .81, SD = .68); immunization authorities (mean increase = .80, SD = .61); main education authorities (mean increase = .75, SD = .68); and businesses (mean increase = .74, SD = .61). Mean PHER grantee increases in the strength of each partner type were statistically significant for all partner types (P < .01). Grantees reported that PHER funding contributed to enhancing the strength of their partnerships with schools most frequently (46/46, 100%), and businesses least frequently (31/37, 83.8%).ConclusionsThis inquiry provides evidence that state, territorial, and local health department partnerships with key sectors, agencies, and programs were strengthened after the H1N1 response. It further demonstrates that the CDC's PHER funding contributed to the health departments’ reports of increased partnership strength.KunK, ZimmermanJ, RoseD, RubelS. State, territorial, and local health departments’ reporting of partnership strength before and after the H1N1 response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(6):1-6.

scholarly journals Engaging Local Health Departments in Disaster Research: A Washington State Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Ali Everhart ◽  
Resham Patel ◽  
Nicole A. Errett
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Local Health Departments ◽  
Disaster Research ◽  
Research Activities

AbstractObjective:Disaster research can inform effective, efficient, and evidence-based public health practices and decision making; identify and address knowledge gaps in current disaster preparedness and response efforts; and evaluate disaster response strategies. This study aimed to identify challenges and opportunities experienced by Washington State local health departments (LHDs) regarding engagement in disaster research activities.Methods:An online survey was disseminated to the emergency preparedness representative for the 35 LHDs in Washington State. Survey questions sought to assess familiarity and experience with disaster research, as well as identify facilitators and barriers to their involvement. The survey was first piloted with 7 local and state public health emergency preparedness practitioners.Results:A total of 82.9% of Washington’s 35 LHDs responded to our survey. Only 17.2% of respondents had previous experience with disaster research. Frequently reported barriers to engaging in disaster research included funding availability, competing everyday priorities, staff capacity, and competing priorities during disaster response.Conclusions:These findings can inform efforts to support disaster research partnerships with Washington State LHDs and facilitate future collaboration. Researchers and public health practitioners should develop relationships and work to incorporate disaster research into LHD planning, training, and exercises to foster practice-based disaster research capacity.

State of public health emergency response leadership training: A multitiered organizational perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-177
Author(s):  
Anthony Salerno, MSc ◽  
Yang Li, MPH, MS ◽  
Xiaohong M. Davis, PhD, MS, MA ◽  
Gail Stennies, MD, MPH ◽  
Daniel J. Barnett, MD, MPH ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Leadership Training ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

Objective: To capture organizational level information on the current state of public health emergency response leadership training.Design: A web-based questionnaire.Participants: This multitiered assessment of health departments included two distinct respondent groups: (1) Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement recipients (n = 34) and (2) local health departments (LHDs) (n = 169) representative of different agency sizes and populations served.Results: Overall, PHEP and LHD respondents expressed a clear preference for participatory learning with practical drills/exercises and participatory workshops as the preferred training delivery modes. Compared with technical and role-specific training, leadership training was less available. For both PHEP and LHD respondents, staff availability for training is most notably limited due to lack of time. For PHEP respondents, a common factor limiting agency ability to offer training is lack of mentors/instructors, whereas for LHD respondents, it is limited funding.Conclusions: Efforts should focus on increasing accessibility and the continued development of rigorous and effective training based on practical experience in all aspects of multitiered public health emergency response leadership. 

scholarly journals Keyword Surveillance and the Development of Evolving Reporting in Austin, Texas

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley N. Hawes
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Syndromic Surveillance ◽  
Chief Complaint ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness

ObjectiveAustin Public Health's Public Health Emergency Preparedness program utilizes a variety of tools and resources to create informative, event-specific, and engaging syndromic surveillance reports to share 1) internally within Austin Public Health; 2) with City of Austin and Travis County partners; 3) local health care coalition members; and 4) the public during events that affect the Austin, Texas metropolitan area.IntroductionAustin Public Health creates a variety of syndromic surveillance reports for events throughout the Austin, Texas metropolitan area. These events range from responses to major disasters such as the 2017 Hurricane Harvey sheltering to ongoing special event monitoring such as University of Texas football games and the Austin City Limits music festival. Partnerships within the Austin metropolitan region are crucial to ensuring the information-sharing necessary to create robust reports, as well as during the follow-up process of requesting feedback from partners on the usefulness of the reports. Austin Public Health's Public Health Emergency Preparedness program utilizes a variety of tools and resources to create informative, event-specific, and engaging reports, fulfilling multiple reporting needs for all partners.MethodsThe process of generating syndromic surveillance reports begins by keyword surveillance of hospital emergency room chief complaint data. Keywords are keyed into the Austin metropolitan area's hospital free-text chief complaints via the Capital Area Public Health and Medical Coalition. The searchable keywords are queried to create a baseline picture of an evolving event. Data are also requested and gathered from multiple partners including local news stations, the National Weather Service, the City of Austin’s Office of Vital Records (birth and death certificates), social media platforms, Austin 3-1-1, and Austin/Travis County Emergency Medical Services. All data are then analyzed, visualized and displayed in reports that are distributed via multiple platforms including email, social media, governmental websites, Geographic Information System (GIS) storymaps, and WebEOC. Reports are then combined into event end summaries. Accompanying the final summary report are feedback surveys.ResultsThe ability to request keywords in an open communication pathway between hospitals, the Capital Area Public Health and Medical Coalition, and the local health department has bolstered area partnerships. Previous surveillance reports have been reported to be both useful and beneficial to departmental, community and health coalition partners. For example, the 2017 report following Hurricane Harvey was used by local hospitals for planning staffing and surge needs, and the 2018 heat report is being used to determine the placement of future cooling stations at special events. A 2019 surveillance report on dockless scooter injuries will be used to inform risk factors and trauma injury severity. Requested changes from partners have included: the addition of graphs, keyword-specific changes, inclusion of social media and broadcast media data, and the use of information from other partners to create a final event or year-end summary report.ConclusionsKeyword surveillance of hospital chief complaint data and of other local real-time data are innovative tools to creating meaningful syndromic surveillance reports that provide situational awareness and are adaptable to the needs of events and situations in the area. The development and evolution of these syndromic surveillance reports has helped to build a rapidly deployable syndromic surveillance system that can provide key data for preparing for and responding to future disaster events. By engaging local and regional partners in an iterative process for developing these reports, APH ensures ongoing improvement, thereby providing more powerful and useful reports to all partners involved. 

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

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.

scholarly journals Actionable lessons for the US COVID vaccine program

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.

scholarly journals 18.H. Workshop: Bringing evidence during public health emergencies: addressing the challenge through HTA

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Response Planning ◽  
Emergency Preparedness And Response ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and irrefutable evidence may be lacking. The process of including evidence in public health decision-making and for evidence-informed policy, in preparation, and during public health emergencies, is not systematic and is complicated by many barriers as the absences of shared tools and approaches for evidence-based preparedness and response planning. Many of today's public health crises are also cross-border, and countries need to collaborate in a systematic and standardized way in order to enhance interoperability and to implement coordinated evidence-based response plans. To strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision-making for public health emergency preparedness and response, it is necessary to better define mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies and the context in which these mechanisms operate. As a multidisciplinary, standardized and evidence-based decision-making tool, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) represents and approach that can inform public health emergency preparedness and response planning processes; it can also provide meaningful insights on existing preparedness structures, working as bridge between scientists and decision-makers, easing knowledge transition and translation to ensure that evidence is effectively integrated into decision-making contexts. HTA can address the link between scientific evidence and decision-making in public health emergencies, and overcome the key challenges faced by public health experts when advising decision makers, including strengthening and accelerating knowledge transfer through rapid HTA, improving networking between actors and disciplines. It may allow a 360° perspective, providing a comprehensive view to decision-making in preparation and during public health emergencies. The objective of the workshop is to explore and present how HTA can be used as a shared and systematic evidence-based tool for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response, in order to enable stakeholders and decision makers taking actions based on the best available evidence through a process which is systematic and transparent. Key messages There are many barriers and no shared mechanisms to bring evidence in decision-making during public health emergencies. HTA can represent the tool to bring evidence-informed actions in public health emergency preparedness and response.

scholarly journals From Anthrax to Zika: Fifteen Years of Public Health Emergency Preparedness

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 (S2) ◽  
pp. S117-S117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Nonkin Avchen ◽  
Tanya Telfair LeBlanc ◽  
Christine Kosmos
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document