A Recommendation for Implementation of an Organizational Assessment Focused on Culture and Quality Improvement Strategies for Local Health Departments

The mission of public health is to promote physical and mental health and prevent disease, injury and disability (Turnock, 2009). This mission requires significant collaboration between local, state and federal level agency practitioners. The public health challenges in the 21st century will be most effectively addressed by practitioners that proactively prepare to meet them through strategies such as workforce development, community engagement, and evidence-based practice. Local Health Departments (LHD) are tasked to meet the health needs of the public at the local level and face many challenges in fulfilling the public health mission. These challenges include managing financial constraints, developing capacity, ensuring workforce training, and providing leadership. An organizational assessment of the culture of a LHD, coupled with the accreditation (including a community health assessment process) can enhance the LHDs ability to meet the needs of their community by focusing on improving critical community health outcomes and applying evidence-based strategies to achieve goals. This paper focuses on an organizational assessment of a Local Health Department (LHD) to identify gaps in performance and opportunities for the application of quality improvement approaches and evidence-based practices to improve the organizational culture in which public health practitioners carry out the public health mission. In addition to a literature review, experiences and lessons learned from an organizational assessment in a North Carolina LHD will be highlighted to propose recommendations for incorporating an organizational assessment focused on culture into an overall accreditation process utilizing evidence-based interventions and quality improvement strategies. A variety of supports and resources are available to a LHD to address areas of performance and improve quality. In this paper a literature review will describe these supports and a case study will describe application of current supports and resources with the addition of an organizational assessment addressing culture and its role in performance and health outcomes.Master of Public Healt

States’ Adoption of Evidence-Based Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder Varies by Medicaid Expansion Status

Between 1998 and 2018, 450,000 Americans have died of overdose from opioid use disorder (OUD). In wake of the pandemic, there was a 42% increase in opioid overdoses in May 2020, compared with May 2019. The annual cost tosociety of prescription drug use disorder is estimated at $74 billion dollars. Despite the significant fiscal and societal burden of this disease, access to evidence-based treatments as outlined Federal Code 42 and the American Societyof Addiction Medicin eremains limited. Of those who sought treatment for OUD in 2016, 38% were covered by Medicaid, while 20% were uninsured. In 2017, there were 2.3 million Americans with OUD, yet there was a 25% decrease in OUD treatment. By 2019, less than 17% of patient diagnosed with OUD received treatment. Given state variation in Medicaid coverage of OUD treatment and the most important barrier to treatment is inadequate insurance coverage, understanding state adoption policies for OUD treatment is crucial to addressing this public health crisis

Long-term evaluation of a course on evidence-based public health in the U.S. and Europe

The evidence-based public health course equips public health professionals with skills and tools for applying evidence-based frameworks and processes in public health practice. To date, training has included participants from all the 50 U.S. states, 2 U.S. territories, and multiple other countries besides the U.S. This study pooled follow-up efforts (5 surveys, with 723 course participants, 2005-2019) to explore the benefits, application, and barriers to applying the evidence-based public health course content. All analyses were completed in 2020. The most common benefits (reported by \u3e80% of all participants) were identifying ways to apply knowledge in their work, acquiring new knowledge, and becoming a better leader who promotes evidence-based approaches. Participants most frequently applied course content to searching the scientific literature (72.9%) and least frequently to writing grants (42.7%). Lack of funds for continued training (35.3%), not having enough time to implement evidence-based public health approaches (33.8%), and not having coworkers trained in evidence-based public health (33.1%) were common barriers to applying the content from the course. Mean scores were calculated for benefits, application, and barriers to explore subgroup differences. European participants generally reported higher benefits from the course (mean difference=0.12, 95% CI=0.00, 0.23) and higher frequency of application of the course content to their job (mean difference=0.17, 95% CI=0.06, 0.28) than U.S. participants. Participants from later cohorts (2012-2019) reported more overall barriers to applying course content in their work (mean difference=0.15, 95% CI=0.05, 0.24). The evidence-based public health course represents an important strategy for increasing the capacity (individual skills) for evidence-based processes within public health practice. Organization-level methods are also needed to scale up and sustain capacity-building efforts

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Practitioner perspectives on building capacity for evidence-based public health in state health departments in the United States: A qualitative case study

BACKGROUND: Public health agencies are responsible for implementing effective, evidence-based public health programs and policies to reduce the burden of chronic diseases. Evidence-based public health can be facilitated by modifiable administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs) (e.g., workforce development, organizational climate), yet little is known about how practitioners view A-EBPs. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand state health department practitioners\u27 perceptions about how A-EBPs are implemented and what facilitators and barriers exist to using A-EBPs. METHODS: Chronic disease prevention and health promotion program staff who were members of the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors were recruited to participate in telephone interviews using a snowball sampling technique. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed using a common codebook and the a priori method in NVivo. RESULTS: Twenty seven interviews were conducted with practitioners in four states (5-8 interviews per state). All practitioners felt that their work unit culture is positive and that leadership encouraged and expected staff to use evidence-based processes. Participants discussed the provision of trainings and technical assistance as key to workforce development and how leaders communicate their expectations. Access to evidence, partnerships, and funding restrictions were the most commonly discussed barriers to the use of A-EBPs and EBDM. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study highlight practitioners\u27 perspectives on promoting evidence-based public health in their departments. Findings can inform the development and refinement of resources to improve A-EBP use and organizational and leadership capacity of state health departments