OHIO LHD ACCREDITATION

SUPPORT PROJECT

Andrew Wapner, DO, MPH, FACOP, FAAP

Meredith Cameron, MSW

The Center for Public Health Practice, OSU

AGENDA

Topic

Project Overview Purpose, Timeline, Design

Opportunities Current and Upcoming Training and Technical Assistance,

Prerequisite Document Reviews, etc.

Accreditation Data Review Overview of Assessment State Accreditation Snap Shot National Accreditation Outcomes

Gallery Walk

PROJECT OVERVIEWMeredith Cameron, MSW

The Ohio Local Public Health Accreditation Support project supports public health accreditation and the provision of public health services

Project Research QuestionIdentify factors that influence accreditation readiness, including local public health district size, geography, breadth of service provision, etc., and develop and study the processes that LHDs undergo to obtain accreditation.

PURPOSE

• Support agencies with the tools and training to complete accreditation requirements.

• Support agencies with the resources to understand and pursue shared services agreements, as applicable.

• Provide a profile of public health services and a snapshot of accreditation readiness.

ADVISORY GROUP

Members:

• Chad Brown, Licking Co. Health Department• Jeff Cooper, Public Health - Dayton and

Montgomery Co.• Joe Mazzola, Franklin Co. Public Health• Jason Menchhofer, Mercer Co.-Celina City Health

Department• Jack Pepper, Athens City-Co. Health Department• Shawn Ray, Noble Co. Health Department• Kim Rieman, Putnam Co. Health Department• Donna Skoda, Summit Co Health Department• Jim Watkins, Williams Co Health Department

Engagement:

• LHD Assessment Survey: Question design and instrument review

• OPPD System Recommendations: Feedback on use and possible improvements

• Training and TA Request Guidelines: Review and feedback on the guideline document

• More to come!

Deliverable #1: Profile and Readiness Assessment

• Conduct statewide readiness assessment

• Develop LHD profile and accreditation readiness report

• Prerequisite documentation review

Deliverable #2: Work Plan Template

• Develop work plan template and disseminate to LHDs

• Provide webinar on template utilization and shared services options

PROJECT DESIGNTIMELINE: JUNE 2016-JUNE 2019

Deliverable #3: Assessment and Recommendation for OPPD

Deliverable #4: Accreditation Support Tools and Training• Gather and publish accreditation resources• Update/create accreditation support trainings and resources

Deliverable #5: Work Plan Monitoring and Reassessment• Biannual review and reporting• Reassessment survey

PROJECT DESIGNTIMELINE: JUNE 2016-JUNE 2019

DELIVERABLE #4 TIMELINE

Deliverable #4

2017 2018 2019

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

ODH Documentation Repository Available July

QI Plan Template Revised July

Accreditation Community of Practice Meetings Oct April Oct April Oct

Shared Services Training Nov

Shared Services Resources Dec

QI Plan Webinars Jan/Feb

WFD Plan Webinars March/April

PM Toolkit Release Oct

PROJECT DESIGNTIMELINE: JUNE 2016-JUNE 2019

Deliverable #6: Technical Assistance and Training• Individualized TA based on agency(ies) needs• Round 1 projects include: strategic planning, quality

improvement, workforce development and performance management assistance

Deliverable #7: Feasibility Study for a Council of Governments

• Support a feasibility study for a Council of Governments in Northwest Ohio

DELIVERABLE #6

• Over 20 responses to the first call for requests were received;

• 8 were supported in part or whole

• More than 50 agencies will receive support via collaboration in Round 1

Project Selection Criteria:

1. Completion of the LHD Profile and Accreditation Readiness Assessment

2. All application information submitted (no incomplete entries reviewed)

3. Information submitted was clear, concise and descriptive

4. Requests that were collaborative and/or addressed similar needs within regional/multiple organizations received preference

DELIVERABLE #6

Round 1 applicant agencies and the focus of the assistance to be received are:

• Zanesville-Muskingum County (10 collaborators): Strategic planning

• Seneca County (2 collaborators): Workforce development planning

• Auglaize County (4 collaborators): Quality improvement planning

• Lake County (21 collaborators): Performance management system development

• Adams County, Canton City, Portsmouth City, Wayne County (9 collaborators): Performance management system development

ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

• LHD profile and accreditation readiness assessment developed and disseminated, response rate N=110

• LHD profile and accreditation readiness assessment reports completed in January 2017

• Prerequisite document reviews begun (include 135 CHA’s and CHIPs to date)

• Work Plan template developed and disseminated in March 2017

• Work Plan training completed and recorded in March 2017

• Performance Management two day training in December 2016 and April 2017

• First round of training & TA requests accepted and underway

• Project website developed and launched

https://u.osu.edu/cphpaccreditationproject/

OPPORTUNITIES

Upcoming Opportunities and Available Resources

Tools & Toolkits Training Document Reviews Technical Assistance

Repository ofresources on website

Performance management toolkit

Revised QI Plan template

Sharing services TBD

Performance management workshop: June 21-22, 2017 andAugust 9-10, 2017

WFD Plan webinar series

QI Plan webinar series

Sharing services TBD

2nd Round of CHA and CHIP review in May 2017 (if requested)

Strategic Plan submission and review beginning July 2017

QI and WFD Plan reviews to follow

Call for requests to be released for 2nd

round of funding for training or technical assistance on May 18th, 2017.

ACCREDITATION DATA REVIEWAndrew Wapner, DO MPH, FACOP, FAAP

LHD PROFILE AND ACCREDITATION READINESS ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT DESIGN

• A multi-component assessment conducted during October and November 2016

• Create a profile of public health service provision, accreditation readiness and financial information• Primary data collected via LHD survey

• Secondary data collected via OPPD (including the AFR

• All LHDs invited to participate; 110 LHD’s responded

A reassessment will be completed in 2018.

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMPOSITE RESULTS

LHD population size is important!

Small and Mid-size LHDs were less likely to be in the late stages of accreditation.

Health departments providing more services were further along in the process.

For Small LHDs, accreditation progress was positively related to the total number of FTEs

Not true for Mid-size or Large LHDs

SERVICES PROVIDED

SERVICES PROVIDED

Impact of accreditation

Strongly agree (%)

Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly disagree (%)

Don't know (%)

Stimulated quality and performance improvement

opportunities within the health department

31 (60) 20 (38) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Allowed the health department to better identify strengths and

weaknesses

33 (63) 17 (33) 2 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Helped the health department document the

capacity to deliver the three core functions of public health and Ten Essential Public Health Services

25 (48) 24 (46) 2 (4) 0 (0) 1 (2)

Health department has used information from the quality improvement processes to

inform decisions

27 (53) 23 (45) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Health department has a strong culture of quality

improvement

17 (33) 30 (59) 3 (6) 0 (0) 1 (2)

Impacts of public health accreditation and the accreditation process reported by health departments accredited by the Public Health Accreditation Board for 1 year (n = 52), 2014–2016

Kronstadt J, Meit M, Siegfried A, Nicolaus T, Bender K, Corso L. Evaluating the Impact of National Public Health Department Accreditation ― United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:803–806. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6531a3.

GALLERY WALK

Gallery Walk Instructions:

1. Form five groups. Each group will go to an easel pad.

2. Respond to question posed on the pad.

3. Rotate every five minutes until groups go to all stations.

4. Process as a large group.