1 / 49

Public Health Practice-Based Research: The Washington Experience

Public Health Practice-Based Research: The Washington Experience. Karen Hartfield, MPH Academic Partnership Coordinator Public Health – Seattle & King County. Research should drive and strengthen quality improvement initiatives … but how can we get it done?. PBRN Purpose.

milton
Download Presentation

Public Health Practice-Based Research: The Washington Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Health Practice-Based Research: The Washington Experience Karen Hartfield, MPH Academic Partnership Coordinator Public Health – Seattle & King County

  2. Research should drive and strengthen quality improvement initiatives … but how can we get it done?

  3. PBRN Purpose Develop sustainable infrastructure Identify practice questions of interest to LHJs, State DOH and Academic Partners Identify and seek funds to answer practice questions Translate research findings into practice through proactive dissemination

  4. PBRN Membership Nine regional LHJs w/PHSKC acting as lead WA State DOH University of Washington School of Nursing University of Washington School of Public Health - NW Center for Public Health Practice Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials

  5. What’s the value of the PBRN to our members? Access to the academic literature and cutting edge models, measures, and methods. Ability to conduct more complex research projects, such as cost benefit analyses Provide the evidence base that what we are doing is effective (or not!) Help us make our case to legislators and funders.

  6. Initial Work Identify Executive Committee Develop charter Learn about network member’s interests and skills Hold kick-off retreat to establish research priorities Identify and apply for funds for research priorities Conduct research projects/disseminate findings

  7. Top 10 Research INTERESTS - Survey

  8. Top Research QUESTIONS - Retreat Impact of funding losses on services and outcomes The role of community in public health service provision Effectiveness of public health interventions Measurement of health outcomes Emergency preparation communication Childhood obesity intervention effectiveness

  9. Three network projects H1N1 Funding Loss: The Unfortunate Natural Experiment Variation in Communicable Disease Investigation Practices

  10. H1N1 Real Time Assessment Purpose Identify variation in LHJ preparedness & response activities Articulate lessons learned for future flu pandemic/PH emergency Pilot evaluation methodology for other PH emergency planning & responseefforts Methods Four telephone surveys of 15 LHJs (9/09 – 5/10) Two online surveys (10, 2009) Timely results dissemination

  11. Tracking H1N1 Vaccine Coverage in ACIP Target Groups Most LHJs were unable to estimate vaccine coverage in ACIP target groups Access to timely, accurate reports on vaccine coverage is critical to inform decisions about target group prioritization, vaccine allocation and other vaccine strategies A timely and efficient statewide vaccine reporting system is needed

  12. Community Engagement Partnerships with community stakeholders facilitated public messaging, outreach, and vaccine provision to ACIP target groups LHJs should establish and maintain ongoing relationships & channels of communication with stakeholders as a part of ongoing routine public health activities

  13. Statewide Communication and Coordination A stronger statewide health emergency response structure would improve communication & coordination among DOH and LHJs In collaboration with LHJs, WA DOH should consider designing a process to develop common standardized guidelines around: Prioritization of vaccine target groups Vaccine management & allocation Tracking vaccine coverage

  14. Useful Planning Activities (May 2010)

  15. Evidence-Based Practice Under Pressure: Local public health decisions made during a financial crisis How are decisions to cut programs made? Are funding decisions evidence-based? Are there empirical tools that can be used to make tough decisions? Can we improve quality of public health services by using objective decision-making tools and criteria?

  16. Research Questions Describe the variationin cuts in response to the current dramatic fiscal conditions forcing LHD service and system changes in WA. Identify factors that influence the adoption, implementation and maintenance of evidence based public health practices during a fiscal crisis Identify commonalities in decisions made across public health settings based on racial, ethnic and socioeconomic composition of the populations served.

  17. Project Methods A mixed method approach that includes an examination of existing local data and the collection of key informant interview data. Data sources include: WA State Activities and Services Inventory, WSALPHO data, and NACCHO Profile data

  18. Using the information to inform quality improvement efforts Identify ways to increase the adoption and implementation of evidence based practices for disease prevention and reducing disparities. Identify efficient and consistent strategies for evidence based decision-makingin the face of budgetary crises. Study completed in August 2011

  19. Communicable Disease Practice Variation Descriptive study of variation in approaches to CD investigation Online survey using SPSS web-based survey application Collection of LHJ protocols Possible precursor to determining best practices and protocols

  20. Selected CD Conditions for Study Animal bite reporting and PEP Pertussis and criteria for PEP Salmonella and food worker policy Hepatitis C criteria for investigation Food borne outbreak and criteria for EH inspections West Nile Virus surveillance

  21. Creating a System for Monitoring how Changes in Public Health Services Impact the Health of Vulnerable Populations – upcoming RWJ study Multi-site PBRN study Examine health outcomes related to variation in PH practice to determine “what works” on a national level. Compare effectiveness of various approaches to LHD practice Use findings to improve the quality of LHD practice and health outcomes in vulnerable populations

  22. PBRN Challenges Articulating value of PHSSR to LHJs and academics Finding principal investigators Funding infrastructure in a time of diminished resources Difficulty of real time assessment Organizing network meetings

  23. PBRN Successes Enthusiastic network of academic and public health practice partners Local and national recognition that descriptive and inferential research can improve quality of public health practice Improved capacity to conduct PHSSR Some increase in funding opportunities (RWJ)

  24. Acknowledgements Dr. Betty Bekemeier, University of Washington School of Nursing Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, Public Health – Seattle & King County Dr. Hanne Thiede, Public Health – Seattle & King County Dr. David Fleming, Public Health – Seattle & King County The Washington Public Health Practice-Based Research Network

  25. Robin Pendley MPH, CPH Angela T. Dearinger MD, MPH, FAAP Kentucky Public Health Research Network (K-PHReN) COACH 4 DMCommunity Outreach &Change for Diabetes management

  26. K-PHReN • Kentucky Public Health Research Network • 17 LHD members • 53/120 KY counties • Kentucky Public Health Association • Kentucky Department of Public Health • University of Kentucky • College of Public Health • Center for Clinical & Translational Science

  27. Type II Diabetes in Kentucky • 10% of KY adults have diabetes • 9th in nation • 6th leading cause of death in KY • 40% of KY adults have pre- diabetes • 2002 estimates of indirect and direct costs of DM • $2.9 billion

  28. Project Aim • Evaluate the extent to which organizational QIstrategies influence the adoption and implementation of evidence- based interventions identified in the Community Guide to Preventive Services • Sufficient evidence to recommend that Diabetes Self- Management Education (DSME) be provided to adults with Type II DM in community gathering places

  29. KY Diabetes Centers of Excellence (DCOE) • Six LHD (all K-PHReN members) • 2 single county LHDs • 4 district LHDs (6-10 counties) • Adults with Type II Diabetes • Goals • Diabetes Self Management Education (DSME) • Behavior change support

  30. COACH 4 DM Goals • Overall purpose: Test whether evidence- based strategies lead to systems changes and process improvements within health departments • Method: Facilitate DCOE in design and implementation of a QI project to improve the delivery of existing DSME services • Utilize methods for systems change including: • Assess readiness for systems level change • Assess current practice • Establish process for improved service delivery • Evaluation of new system for service delivery

  31. Study Participants • LHD designated as a DCOE (6) • QI Champion • Contact person • Coordinate team meetings • Provide pre/ post intervention data • QI Team • DCOE staff/ DSME educators • 4-6 members

  32. Study Protocol:Change Facilitators • UK Office of Research Engagement for Advancing Community Health (REACH) • Previous training in QI facilitation • AHRQ Putting Prevention into Practice • IHI QI Collaborative • Embracing Quality in Local Public Health: Michigan’s QI Guidebook • Applied qualitative methodology • Regulatory compliance in QI research • Previous projects • Primary Care practice- DM management, cancer screening (through primary care PBRN)

  33. Study Protocol • Enrollment visit • Consent • Project Overview • Three ½ day facilitation sessions • Monthly • At each DCOE site • Weekly communication with QI teams • Individual project periods • 6-9 months • Data collection & Evaluation

  34. Study Protocol- Facilitation • Session One • Readiness for Change • (Modified) Assessment of Chronic Illness Care Version 3.5 (RWJF) • Assessment of current practice • Overview of QI methods/ tools • Specific focus on PDSA • Specific focus on evaluation • Also introduce: RCA, Cause/ Effect diagram, Logic models, Flow mapping • Brainstorming • Tailor training to QI team needs/ preferences

  35. Study Protocol- Facilitation • Sessions 2 & 3 • Facilitate PDSA • Guide modifications to QI project plan • Provide additional QI training as needed • Between sessions • Weekly contact • Phone • Email

  36. Collaborative Conference • Include all study participants • Discuss early successes and challenges • After 1st & 2nd facilitation session • Tele-video

  37. Logic Model Assumption-Improved outcomes not short term External Factors-Previous QI experience, organizational climate

  38. Outcomes • 1. Assess effectiveness of systems- based QI methods • Process improvement • Adoption/ Implementation of QI activities • Systems level change • Organizational climate • Behavior change • Knowledge of and comfort with QI • Utilization of pre/post surveys, post- session evaluations, direct observation, interviews

  39. Outcomes • 2. Assess impact on DCOE capacity • # enrolled in DCOE • # receiving DSME • # completing DSME • # referrals and referral sources • Care Coordination efforts with PCP • Service delivery changes: • Method, location, content, timing, duration, frequency, language translation availability • DM rates • DM related factors rates (physical activity, diet) • Utilization of pre/post intervention capacity measures

  40. Research Drives Quality Improvement: The PBRN Initiative Nancy Winterbauer, PhD Duval County Health Department & University of Florida

  41. Objectives • FL-PHPBRN background • Organizational structure • Strengths • QI implementation: Transformational change • Qualitative results • Notes and observations • Transformation, diffusion and readiness • PHPBR to drive QI

  42. Florida Center for PHPBR FL-PHPBRN Steering Committee Subcommittees Research Network Development/Academic Health Departments Health Informatics FACHO Regional Consortia Northeast Central Southeast West Central Emerald Coast Southwest Alachua Other CHDs Academic CHD Regional network illustrated for the FACHO Southwest Region Regional University Affiliates and Other Partners Background: FL-PHPBRN organizational structure

  43. Background: FL-PHPBRN Organizational Structure

  44. Background: FL-PHPBRN strengths • 67 county health departments • Strong SACHO • Communication • Relationships • Strong academic partners • Academic health departments • Health Information Technology

  45. QI implementation: Data sources • Evaluating Quality Improvement Approaches to Improve Immunizations in Jacksonville, FL • RWJF-funded, June 15 2009 – June 14 2011; • PIs: Wlliam Livingood, PhD; Radwan Sabbagh, MD • Initial implementation (1st six months) • Social marketing • Customer satisfaction • Employee satisfaction

  46. Leadership Commitment Agency-Wide Philosophical Shift Staff External Locus of Control PDCA Positive Results QI implementation: Transformational change Staff Engagement Staff Internal Locus of Control qi : QI Implement Change Staff Capacity Organizational Valuing

  47. Transformation, diffusion and readiness in LHD settings • Change valence • Change efficacy • Task demands • Resource availability • Situational factors • Contextual factors • Outcomes • Implementation • qi : QI Weiner, Implementation Science, 2009, 4:67

  48. Nancy Winterbauer, PhD Director, Florida Center for Public Health Practice-Based Research Nancy_Winterbauer@doh.state.fl.us 904-253-2056

More Related