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.