What illnesses contraindicate immunization?

The Advisory Council on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reports that the only contraindication for all vaccines is a history of severe allergic reaction to a previous vaccine or vaccine constituent (strength of recommendations: C, based predominantly on case series, case reports, and expert opinion)

Should the varicella vaccine be given to all children to prevent chickenpox?

Healthy, unimmunized children who have not had varicella infection should be vaccinated (strength of recommendation: A, based on randomized controlled trials). Use of the vaccine in immunocompromised children is still being studied and has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Do standing orders help with chronic disease care and health maintenance in ambulatory practice?

Studies of standing orders tend to examine their effect on compliance with preventive interventions for chronic disease rather than disease outcomes. In the ambulatory setting, they improve rates of influenza vaccination (strength of recommendation [SOR]: C, consistent cohort studies measuring vaccination rates), pneumococcal vaccination (SOR: C, consistent randomized controlled trials [RCTs] measuring vaccination rates), childhood immunizations (SOR: C, inconsistent RCTs measuring vaccination rates), and mammograms (SOR: C, RCT measuring screening rate). Standing orders don�۪t improve screening rates for colorectal cancer (SOR: C, RCT measuring screening rate)

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening.

BackgroundShared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men.ObjectiveIn July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians.DesignTwo-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes.ParticipantsSixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations).Main measuresPanelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified.Key resultsHighly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training.ConclusionsConference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers

A Regional Health Care System Partnership With Local Communities to Impact Chronic Disease

Regional health care systems have significant opportunities to adopt community-oriented approaches that impact the incidence and burden of chronic disease. In 1998, a vertically integrated, regional health care system established a community health institute to identify, understand, and respond to health needs from a community perspective. The project was implemented in four communities (two rural counties, a rural/urban transitional county, and an inner-city community) using five steps: 1) support or form a local community coalition; 2) hire and support a local coordinator; 3) prepare a formal community assessment; 4) fund locally designed interventions; and 5) evaluate each project. In four narrative case studies, we present the steps, challenges, and common principles faced at the local level by Carolinas Community Health Institute. The case studies were prepared using three data sources: reviews of written documents, interviews with the seven-member steering committee, and interviews with six key informants from each county. Data were coded and analyzed using standard qualitative software to identify common themes and sources of variance between cases. The project model was generally well accepted. Local autonomy and domain disputes were challenges in all four sites. Funding for local projects was the most frequently cited benefit. The project was successful in increasing local capacity and supporting well-designed interventions to prevent chronic disease. This approach can be used by large health care systems and by other organizations to better support local health initiatives

Establishing Worksite Wellness Programs for North Carolina Government Employees, 2008

Background: State employee health plans sometimes provide worksite wellness programs to reduce the prevalence of chronic diseases among their members, but few offer the comprehensive range of interventions recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Community Context: North Carolina's State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees provides health coverage for approximately 665,000 state employees, teachers, retirees, and dependents. Health claims indicate that the prevalence of having at least 1 chronic disease or of being obese is approximately 32% among state employees. Methods: The State Health Plan created a partnership with North Carolina's Division of Public Health, Office of State Personnel, and other key state agencies to identify bureaucratic obstacles to providing worksite wellness programs for state employees and to develop a state policy to address them. The Division of Public Health established a model worksite program to guide development of the worksite wellness policy and pilot wellness interventions. Outcome: The state's first worksite wellness policy created an employee wellness infrastructure in state government and addressed administrative barriers to allow effective worksite wellness interventions. For example, the policy led to pilot implementation of a subsidized worksite weight management program. Positive results of the program helped generate legislative support to expand the weight management program throughout state government. Interpretation: Strong interagency partnership is essential to guide worksite wellness policy and program development in state government. State health plans, public health agencies, and personnel agencies each play a role in that partnership

Racial Disparities in Blood Pressure Control and Treatment Differences in a Medicaid Population, North Carolina, 2005-2006

Introduction: Racial disparities in prevalence and control of high blood pressure are well-documented. We studied blood pressure control and interventions received during the course of a year in a sample of black and white Medicaid recipients with high blood pressure and examined patient, provider, and treatment characteristics as potential explanatory factors for racial disparities in blood pressure control. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 2,078 black and 1,436 white North Carolina Medicaid recipients who had high blood pressure managed in primary care practices from July 2005 through June 2006. Documented provider responses to high blood pressure during office visits during the prior year were reviewed. Results: Blacks were less likely than whites to have blood pressure at goal (43.6% compared with 50.9%, P = .001). Blacks above goal were more likely than whites above goal to have been prescribed 4 or more antihypertensive drug classes (24.7% compared with 13.4%, P < .001); to have had medication adjusted during the prior year (46.7% compared with 40.4%, P = .02); and to have a documented provider response to high blood pressure during office visits (35.7% compared with 30.0% of visits, P = .02). Many blacks (28.0%) and whites (34.3%) with blood pressure above goal had fewer than 2 antihypertensive drug classes prescribed. Conclusion: In this population with Medicaid coverage and access to primary care, blacks were less likely than whites to have their blood pressure controlled. Blacks received more frequent intervention and had greater use of combination antihypertensive therapy. Care patterns observed in the usual management of high blood pressure were not sufficient to achieve treatment goals or eliminate disparities

Assessing Local Health Department Performance in Diabetes Prevention and Control — North Carolina, 2005

Introduction: To improve the public health system's ability to prevent and control chronic diseases, we must first understand current practice and develop appropriate strategies for measuring performance. The objectives of this study were to measure capacity and performance of local health departments in diabetes prevention and control and to investigate characteristics associated with performance. Methods: In 2005, we conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey of all 85 North Carolina local health departments to assess capacity and performance in diabetes prevention and control based on the 10 Essential Public Health Services and adapted from the Local Public Health System Performance Assessment Instrument. We linked survey responses to county-level data, including data from a national survey of local health departments. Results: Local health departments reported a median of 0.05 full-time equivalent employees in diabetes prevention and 0.1 in control. Performance varied across the 10 Essential Services; activities most commonly reported included providing information to the public and to policy makers (76%), providing diabetes education (58%), and screening (74%). The mean score on a 10-point performance index was 3.5. Characteristics associated with performance were population size, health department size and accreditation status, and diabetes-specific external funding. Performance was not better in localities where the prevalence of diabetes was high or availability of primary care was low. Conclusion: Most North Carolina local health departments had limited capacity to conduct diabetes prevention or control programs in their communities. Diabetes is a major cause of illness and death, yet it is neglected in public health practice. These findings suggest opportunities to enhance local public health practice, particularly through targeted funding and technical assistance