Accreditation and Quality Improvement of Rural Health Departments: Opportunities, Challenges and Tools

of 58

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
PDF
58 pages
0 downs
2 views
Share
Description
Accreditation and Quality Improvement of Rural Health Departments: Opportunities, Challenges and Tools . Brittany Kennedy, MPH Caitlin Labranche, MPH Indiana Public Health Association . IRHA Conference: June 11, 2009 . Outline. Accreditation Overview
Transcript
Accreditation and Quality Improvement of Rural Health Departments: Opportunities, Challenges and Tools Brittany Kennedy, MPH Caitlin Labranche, MPHIndiana Public Health Association IRHA Conference: June 11, 2009 Outline
  • Accreditation Overview
  • Quality Improvement To Move You Toward Accreditation
  • Quality Improvement Tools You Can Use
  • Rural Health Departments Accreditation Experiences
  • Conclusion
  • Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB)
  • National Board established to shape national public health accreditation for state and local health departments
  • Support from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)
  • Comprised of health officers, local boards of health, policy makers, etc.
  • Partnered with NACCHO, ASTHO, and NALBOH
  • Voluntary Accreditation
  • The goal of a voluntary national accreditation program is to improve and protect the health of the public by advancing the quality and performance of state and local public health departments
  • The 10 Essential ServicesOperational Definition:
  • Defines what responsibilities every person, regardless of where they live, should reasonably expect their local health departments to fulfill.
  • Is the framework for the national accreditation standards
  • Readiness Review Re-Accreditation / Continuous QI Appeals Process Self AssessmentFinal DeterminationAccreditation Team Site VisitAccreditation Staff ReviewRecommendation Report Accreditation Process IPHA at the State Level
  • Accreditation / Quality Improvement Steering Committee
  • Accreditation Advisory Body
  • Working with ISDH to give a common message to all local health departments
  • IPHA at the District Level
  • Opportunity to network with other LHDs
  • Receiving lots of feedback
  • Eight of the ten preparedness districts
  • 50 counties over 100 LHD staff have attended
  • IPHA at the Local Level
  • Multi-state Learning Collaboratives
  • One on one accreditation information – staff meetings or selected staff at local health department
  • Boards of Health accreditation information
  • Where are we going from here?
  • Quality improvement tools and resources
  • Technical assistance to local health departments
  • Planning and monitoring
  • Facilitating meetings and creating networking opportunities
  • Health develop personal timelines for accreditation
  • Tools and strategies tailored to your health department
  • Future Education
  • Where can you go from here?
  • Follow PHAB Progress at www.phaboard.org – sign up for updates
  • Start talking to the key people in your community
  • Prepare
  • Employ the National Public Health Performance Standards
  • Review the Operational Definition
  • Call on IPHA to come to a staff meeting, BoH meeting, or just to discuss your LHD needs
  • Accreditation SupportQuality Improvements Tools: An OverviewQuality Improvement Principles
  • W. Edwards Deming – grandfather of QI
  • Work in Japan post WWII
  • Purpose is to stay in business, provide jobs
  • Juran’s 85-15 Principle
  • 85% of problems are result of “system”
  • 15% or less due to employee error.
  • Why Quality Improvement in Public Health?Quality Improvement produces amazing side effects; not only improved performance but:
  • Employees take more pride in their work.
  • Interdepartmental projects break down silos.
  • Employee morale is improved.
  • Deming: A firm believer that people want to do good work, are demoralized when systemic problems produce barriers.ActPlanStudyDoQuality Improvement
  • Systematic way of looking at work processes, identifying areas for improvement, making changes and determining if they are effective.
  • What are we trying to accomplish?
  • How will we know that a change is an improvement?
  • What changes can we make that will result in improvement?
  • Quality Improvement Tools - Check sheetPurpose: Collect data in an organized manner.Telephone Interruptions Excerpted from Nancy R. Tague’sThe Quality Toolbox, Second Edition, ASQ Quality Press, 2004, pages 141-142. Quality Improvement Tools – Pie ChartPurpose: Display the volume or quantity of one item in relation to others.Quality Improvement Tools – Bar ChartPurpose: Arrange data for quick and easy comparison.Quality Improvement Tools – Line GraphPurpose: Display the output of a process over time.Quality Improvement Tools - HistogramPurpose: Determine how data are distributed.Quality Improvement Tools – FlowchartPurpose: Differentiate between activities in a process. RFFlow Professional Flowcharting, http://www.rff.com/flowchart_samples.htmQuality Improvement Tools – Barriers and AidsPurpose: Document the hindering and supporting factors that influence a planned activity.Quality Improvement Tools – Barriers and AidsPurpose: Document the hindering and supporting factors that influence a planned activity.Quality Improvement Tools – Cause and Effect DiagramPurpose: Identify a set of related causes that lead to an effect or problem.Quality Improvement Tools - BrainstormingCollect a large number of ideas from a group of people. Many ideas, quickly as possible.
  • One-at-a-time (everyone speaks)
  • Open door (call out ideas)
  • Write-it-down (confidentiality)
  • Guidelines:
  • Be creative
  • Build on ideas of others
  • No critique allowed
  • Quality Improvement Tools – Interviews & SurveysInterviews:
  • Purpose: Collect data from direct conversation.
  • Surveys:
  • Purpose: Collect data from a large number of people.
  • Quality Improvement Resources
  • Everyone’s Problem Solving Handbook, Michael R Kelley
  • Public Health Memory Jogger II, www.goalqpc.com/shop_products_detail.cfm?PID=754&PageNum_GetProducts=1&ProductShopBy=7.
  • Embracing Quality in Local Public Health: Michigan’s Quality Improvement Guidebook, http://www.accreditation.localhealth.net/
  • D Tews, MK Sherry, J Butler, A Martin.
  • NPHPSP Online Resource Center. www.phf.org/nphpsp/
  • NACCHO Model Practices, www.naccho.org/topics/modelpractices/index.cfm
  • Accreditation in Rural Counties: Interviews with accredited counties in Washington and MissouriDefinitions
  • Economic Research Service Rural-Urban Commuting Areas
  • Coded and defined by the US Dept of Agriculture
  • Rural : 4-10 coding
  • A measure of population density, urbanization daily commuting, among 10 major and 30 secondary codes
  • Who Participated
  • Counties from states that met my definition of rural that agreed to be interviewed
  • Not all are accredited
  • Missouri
  • Accredited
  • Taney, Johnson, Pulaski, Douglas
  • Not Accredited
  • Mercer
  • Washington
  • Clallam, Mason, Walla Walla,
  • Reasons for undergoing accreditation?
  • Staff wanted recognition for their hard work
  • Saw positive impacts it had on other health departments
  • Able to fund it with grant money
  • Saw the need for it in their own health department
  • Viewed it as mandatory
  • What incentives did you find?
  • Funding from outside sources
  • Viewed it as a mark of excellence
  • Able to jumpstart improvement projects
  • Use it as a measure of improvement over time
  • Mutual accountability for local and state health departments
  • Quality improvement
  • Recognition by community partners and public
  • Understand health department strengths and weaknesses
  • How to capitalize on the incentives?
  • Partner with other health departments to gain more funding and political power
  • Prepared the data for legislation on what is needed to improve standards to receive funds
  • Open and honest about the self assessments comparing past and current rankings
  • Advertised their participation and gained lots of support as a result
  • Priority levels5: Top of the to-do list4: Near the top3: Neutral2: Near the bottom1: Bottom of the to-do listWhat role did local government have?
  • A large gradient of support
  • In difference to full support
  • Following accreditation a continued gradient
  • Some health departments anticipate no change in the relationship
  • Some health departments believe relationships have improved as a result of the accreditation
  • Staff Attitude Before Accreditation
  • Another task to complete, negative
  • Some complacent and some enthusiastic
  • Neutral
  • Indifferent
  • A little resistant and frightened
  • Staff Attitude During Accreditation
  • More in favor of it and now have a personal responsibility
  • More enthusiasm the further along the project
  • Improved morale
  • Seen as doable and even eager
  • See it as less daunting now
  • Felt appreciated to share best practices
  • Much more comfortable and accepting
  • What Barriers did you Observe?
  • Time to get prepared and pull resources together
  • Money
  • Lack of accreditation experience
  • Creating documentation
  • Motivating staff
  • Lack of knowledge and understanding by staff, partners and social agencies
  • Circumventing the barriers
  • Schedule a department wide meeting regularly for QI projects
  • Went through each standard to see what was needed
  • Administrator acted as coordinator and each department had to satisfy documentation
  • Prepare documentation over years on an ‘as you go’ basis and focus on a specific standard each year rather than scramble
  • General education about accreditation and rearrange people’s schedules to find time to sit down together
  • Demonstrate value to senior staff and have it trickle down
  • Regional applications?
  • Very mixed reactions from a variety of counties
  • Some saw no usefulness in it at all and some called regional applications ‘impossible to do without’
  • Benefits
  • Reap the benefits of already strong relationships
  • Combining resources and sharing people
  • Barriers
  • Who pays for what
  • Differences in size a capabilities
  • What tools would be important?What tools would be important?5: Very important4: Somewhat important3: Neutral2: Somewhat unimportant1: Not important at allWhat recommendations do you have?
  • There is a lot of good help available out there if you are willing to explore
  • Give yourselves enough time
  • Keep an open mind. Accreditation provides an excellent tool to use to talk to the public and officials on how you are doing as a public health system. You can use it to point out what resources you need to meet needs and show results of public health efforts and inputted resources. Don’t be afraid of it.
  • What recommendations do you have?
  • It will be easier as a collaborative. Extra hands help.
  • Don’t let it overwhelm you, it really isn’t that bad. Look for resources and partners.
  • Get your documentation filed now, don’t wait.
  • Start early and train in QI/QA and process improvement.
  • Be committed to work through doubts before you begin.
  • Get staff buy in and orient everyone.
  • Was accreditation worth it?Results from Study on Rural Health Department Accreditation: Conducted by National Network of Public Health Institutes with funding from the Centers for Disease ControlMotivators for Seeking Accreditation Among Rural Health Departments
  • Establishing consistent standards
  • Improving Quality
  • Increasing Accountability
  • Increasing Staff Moral
  • Developing Best Practices
  • Effect of Rurality on Accreditation
  • Don’t view accreditation as a priority
  • Staff members are not bought on the concept
  • Specific characteristics of the rural LHD
  • Size
  • Jurisdiction type
  • Population served
  • Capacity to meet standards
  • Funding and resources
  • Staff training and coverage
  • Challenges for Seeking Accreditation
  • Resources
  • Lack of short term benefits
  • Organizational capacity
  • Workforce capacity
  • Perceived lack of applicability to rural jurisdictions
  • Distribution Authority for Public Health
  • UNIQUE TO RURAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
  • Workforce capacities
  • Infrastructure
  • Diversity of population served
  • Funding
  • Inadequate fiscal and human resources were identified as major barriers associated with accreditation
  • Inadequate staff knowledge of accreditation
  • Lack of formal public health training among LHD staff
  • Shortages of resources
  • Structural barriers
  • Lack of adequate funding
  • Strategies for Rural LHD Accreditation
  • Demonstrate the value of accreditation to local decision-makers
  • Generate concrete outcomes: action, improvements
  • Use innovative funding strategies to support accreditation efforts
  • Use tiered or phased approaches to accreditation
  • Form partnerships with academic institutions
  • Accreditation can be a tool to communicate the functions of public health
  • Communicate the benefits of public health to county commissioners, board of health members, governors, and other state and local policy makers in order to leverage and/or sustain funds and support for public health activities
  • Foster interaction among stakeholders
  • Encourage collaboration to meet high standards
  • Avoid duplication of efforts in communities
  • Maximize returns from scarce resources
  • Educating the public, staff and other stakeholders
  • Improving capacity and quality of services are perceived as key benefits of accreditation
  • Adhere to a set of standards
  • Improved quality of services
  • Setting bar for health departments to achieve certain capacities
  • Promote uniformity in the quality of services delivered across health departments
  • Monitor agencies’ performance and document outcomes for strategic planning and quality improvement initiatives.
  • Enable LHDs to more effectively compete for more grant money from governmental and non-governmental sources.
  • Educating health department staff and policy makers are key strategies for rural LHD accreditation
  • Education to LHD staff on rationale and benefits
  • Demonstrate the value to county commissioners and mayors
  • Benefits of AccreditationContact IPHA
  • Brittany Kennedy, MPHbkennedy@inpha.org317.221.3139
  • Jerry Kingjking@inpha.org317.221.2392
  • Caitlin Labranche, MPHclabranche@inpha.org260.755.9614
  • Related Search
    Advertisements
    Similar documents
    View more...
    Advertisements
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks