THE WEBCAST WILL BEGIN SHORTLYeoplugin.commpartners.com/naccho/080410/Final Presentation.pdf · THE WEBCAST WILL BEGIN SHORTLY • If you need technical assistance please email [email protected]

1

THE WEBCAST WILL BEGIN SHORTLY

• If you need technical assistance please email [email protected]

• The primary means of listening to this webcast is via streaming audio through

your computer speakers.

• If you are unable to access streaming audio through your computer, or if you

would like to ask a live question during the webcast, please dial 1-800-378-6604, and when prompted, enter code 5475681#.

• Jessica Solomon: NACCHO Project Overview and Deliverables

• Penney Davis: NACCHO Operational Definition of a Functional Local Health Department

• Janan Wunsch-Smith: Using the Operational Definition Prototype Metrics Assessment Tool to Conduct Local Health Department Internal Capacity Assessments

• Bill Barberg: Online Self-Assessment Software Module

• Question and Answer Sessions

Webcast Agenda

NACCHO Demonstration Sites Project Overview

Jessica Solomon, MCPProgram Manager, NACCHO Staff

• Funded Local Health Departments

• Contract Process Overview

• Review of Deliverables

• Role of QI Consultants

• Communication Avenues

• Useful Terms

2

Funded Individual & Tribal LHDs

• Bethlehem Health Bureau, PA

• Central Michigan District Health Department, MI

• City of Milford Health Department, CT

• Coconino County Health Department, AZ

• Franklin County Board of Health, OH

• Genesee County Health Department, MI

• Green River District Health Department, KY

• Harris County Public Health & Environmental

Services, TX

• Houston Department of Health and Human

Services, TX

• Ingham County Health Department, MI

• Kane County Health Department, IL

• Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, KS

• Lee County Health Department, IA

• Levy County Health Department, FL

• Livingston County Department of Health, NY

• Logan County Health Department, OK

• Logan-Hocking County Health District, OH

• Louisville Metro Dept. of Public Health & Wellness, KY

• Mascoma Valley Health Initiative, NH

• Montgomery Township Health Department, NJ

• Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human

Services, AK

• Okaloosa County Health Department, FL

• Osceola County Health Department / Primary Care Medical

Services of Poinciana, Inc, FL

• Pinellas County Health Department, FL

• Stanislaus County Health Services Agency, CA

• Summit County Combined General Health District, OH

• Tulsa City-County Health Department, OK

• Valley City-County Health District, ND

• Washington County Department of Public Health and

Environment, MN

• Wauwatosa Health Department, WI

• Cherokee National Tribal Health Department, OK

Funded Collaborative LHDs

• Denville Collaborative, NJ

Denville Division of Health

Randolph Township Health Department

Rockaway Township Health Department

• Lyon Collaborative, KS

Lyon County Health Department

Franklin County Health Department

Morris County Health Department

Coffey County Health Department

Osage County Health Department

Wabaunsee County Health Department

Greenwood County Health Department

Chase County Health Department

• Mercer Collaborative, MO

Mercer County Health Department

Putnam County Health Department

Sullivan County Health Department

• Pomperaug and Naugatuck Collaborative, CT

Pomperaug Health District

Naugatuck Valley Health District

• Region G Collaborative, MO

Carter County Health Center

Douglas County Health Department

Howell County Health Department

Oregon County Health Department

Ozark County Health Department

Reynolds County Health Center

Shannon County Health Center

Texas County Health Department

Wright County Health Department

LHD Geographic Distribution

Single

Collaborative

ID

AZ

UT

MT

WY

NM

CO

AL

FL

SC

TN

KY

INOH

NC

SD

KS

NE

MN

WI

IA

IL

MO

AR

MS

ND

OR

CA NV

WA

AK

PA

ME

VA

NY

CT

WV

DE

MD

NJ

VTNH

MA

RI

LA

GA

MI

HI

OK

TX

D.C.

3

Contract Process

• E-mail receipt of NACCHO contract 3/28/08• Print and Sign two copies• Mail both hard copies to:

Penney DavisNACCHO1100 17th St NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20036

• NACCHO signs and returns one fully executed hard copy

Revisions needed?

• E-mail contract with “track changes” to [email protected]

• NACCHO reviews changes

• NACCHO accepts changes OR initiates a discussion between NACCHO Contracts Specialist and LHD Contract Contact to come to consensus

• Sign two copies, mail both hard copies to [email protected]

NACCHO works to maintain consistency in our contract language and may or may not be able to accept proposed changes. We are committed to working to meet mutually

acceptable contract language but recognize that it is not always possible.

1) 2)

Deliverables Review

Single LHDs

• Self-assessment results into NACCHO software (by May 15, 2008)

• Evaluation (within 2 weeks of assessment completion)

• Identification of at least one, measurable priority area for improvement

• Documentation of QI process

• NACCHO Model Practices submission

• Attendance on bi-monthly conference calls

• Attendance during QI Training

• Final report submission

Collaboratives

• Self-assessment results into NACCHO software (by May 15, 2008)

• Evaluation (within 2 weeks of assessment completion)

• Aggregated assessment results

• Identification of at least one, measurable priority area for collaborative improvement

• Development of a formal collaborative mechanism

• NACCHO Model Practices submission

• Attendance on bi-monthly conference calls

• Attendance during QI Training

•Final report submission

Role of Quality Improvement Consultants

• Optional

• Screened for knowledge and work related to QI only, NOT for work related to Assessment, Strategic Planning, Regional/Collaborative Planning

• LHD contracts directly with QI consultant

• NACCHO technical assistance includes TA as needed in the design and implementation of self-assessment activities, data aggregation and analysis

• NACCHO has worked with some, but not all of the consultants on the list

• QI documentation must follow NACCHO’s reporting template

**NACCHO is unable to provide exhaustive technical as sistance to any one LHD or collaborative in these areas (e.g. walking through the entire self-assessment of

collaborative planning process). A consultant with experience in the self-assessment is included in the QI List should any LHD or collabora tive require this level of TA **

4

Communication Avenues

• Penney Davis is your primary point of contact at NACCHO

• E-mail communications may come from other NACCHO staff

• Use of distribution list for communicating with all sites: Project Contact is the automatic recipient

• Others may subscribe to distribution list

• Distribution list may be used for LHDs to communicate to one another

Common Terminology in Operational Definition

• Domain/Essential ServiceDomain I: “Monitor health status and understand health issues facing the community”

• StandardStandard I-A “Obtain and maintain data that provide information on the community’s health…….”

• Measure/IndicatorMeasure I-A:4 “LHD has an electronic linkage with local and statewide databases”

What Every Community Should Expect

Operational Definition of a Functional Local Health Department

Penney Davis, MPH

Program Associate, NACCHO Staff

5

NACHO versus NACCHO

NACHODefinition: [NAH-choh] A crisp

tortilla chip topped with melted cheese (usually cheddar) and chopped chiles, usually served as an appetizer or snack. Nachos sometimes appear on menus as "Mexican pizza," in which case they generally have additional toppings such as cooked, ground chorizo, onions and sometimes olives.

NACCHODefinition : [NAY-choh] An

association of dedicated public health professionals who represent over 3,000 local public health agencies (including city, county, metro, district, and Tribal agencies).

Importance of the Standards

“..government public health agencies at federal, state, and local levels are the backbone of this public health system and must be strong.”

“The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Cent ury”,Institute of Medicine, 2002

6

The 10 Essential Public Health Services…

use cartoon here

NON SEQUITUR © 2004 Wiley Miller. Dist. By UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

NACo, USCM

NCSL, NGA

Iterative Process

SHDs

CDC, HRSA

LHDsLBOH

1. Monitor health status and understand health issuesfacing the community.

2. Protect people from health problems and health hazards.

7

3. Give people the information they need to make healthy choices.

4. Engage the community to identify and solve health problems.

5. Develop public health policies and plans.

6. Enforce public health laws and regulations.

7. Help people receive health services.

8

8. Maintain a competent public health workforce.

9. Evaluate and improve programs and interventions.

10. Use and contribute to the evidence base of public health.

9

Final Recommendations of the Exploring Accreditation Project

“NACCHO’s Operational Definition of a Functional Local Health Department should serve as the foundation of standards (and associated measures) for local health departments.”

Prototype Metrics

Your Role: Feedback for PHAB

• Individual LHD Demo Grants

• Collaborative LHD Demo Grants

• KS Regionalization Pilot Sites

10

“Public health is a complex concept, but the Operational Definition can help dispel the mystery. Eventually public health can be recognized and valued even when—particularly when—things are going well.”

-Susan GerardDirector, Arizona Department of Health Services

Closing Note

Using the Operational Definition Prototype Metrics Assessment Tool to Conduct Local Health Department Internal Capacity Assessments

Janan Wunsch-SmithJanan Wunsch & [email protected]

Performance Standards Under Each Essential Service

• Generally accepted objective standard of measurement against which an organization’s level of performance can be compared

• Provide measurable standards that public health systems can use to ensure the delivery of essential public health services

11

Operational Definition Prototype Metrics

• Provided Indicators under each standard that local public health department’s could use to assess whether they were meeting the standards

• Provided illustrative evidence to assist in identifying whether the indicators were being met

Operational Definition Prototype Metrics Self-Assessment Tool

• Based on the Prototype Metrics-Revised

• Indicators are scored on a scale of 0-4

– Measurement of the capacity, either internal or through contract, to meet the indicator– Not every local health department will have the internal capacity to perform all indicators. They may need to contract or partner with another health department or entity to assure their public has access to the services.

Scoring Directions…..

• Using the scale, score each indicator based on the capacity

within your Local Health Department (LHD). In your assessment,

include both the capacity provided by your health department staff

and through contracts and/or agreements with other entities.

•Note: To meet the standards, your department must assure

that the essential services are met, but does not have to

provide all of them from within your agency.

12

Scoring Directions Continued….

• In the comment section, following each focus area please identify

partners (non-contract) at the local, regional, or state level that

provide capacity to fulfill indicators in the section.

– Other public health partners may provide the public health service as part of their mission/activities but without a formalcontract/relationship with the LHD (Public Health System)

Scoring Directions Continued….

• The items in the column labeled “Documents and/or Activities

That Demonstrate the Indicators Have Been Met” provide various

documentation and types of activities that, if completed,

demonstrate that the LHD meets that indicator.

– These activities/products provide evidence that the LHD has thecapacity to meet the indicator. There may be other evidence that will also demonstrate the capacity. These are not meant to be exclusive.

Scoring Continued…

Color Code DescriptionScore

Optimal capacity: There is significant planning, staffing and resources and significant to optimal activity and/or documentation to fulfill the indicator.

4

Significant capacity: There is significant planning, staffing, and other resources and a moderate amount of activity and/or documentation.

3

Moderate capacity: There is moderate planning, staffing and other resources to fulfill the indicator but only minimal activity and/or documentation.

2

Minimal capacity: There is minimal planning and staffing capacity to fulfill the indicator but no implementation activity or documentation.

1

No capacity: There is no capacity, planning, staff, resources, activities, or documentation to fulfill the indicator.

0

13

Scoring Instructions

• Any indicator that has a score of 0 — 2 is identified as in need of increased capacity.

• Any indicator that has a score of 3 — 4 is indentified as having adequate capacity.

• The only exception is if the indicator with a score of 0 — 2 has another non-contract entity identified in the comment section as providing that service for the population, then that indicator would be considered covered by the other entity’s capacity.

Performing the Assessment….Who Should Complete the Assessment?

LHD can select who will complete the assessment:

– Recommend, where possible, a cross section of the department, representing all services areas

– Some departments may only have a few staff and they may all choose to complete the assessment

– One person may choose to complete the assessment, but should be the director or high level of management who knows allthe activities of the department.

Performing the Assessment…. How should we perform the assessment?

• Each selected person completes the on-line assessment independently and the scores for all those taking the assessmentare averaged to get the score for each indicator.

• Each selected person completes the on-line assessment independently and then the results are discussed and a consensusis reach as to the final score for each indicator.

• All those selected to complete the assessment discuss the scoring and one score is entered on-line.

14

Performing the Assessment…..How long will it take?

• For individual LHDs to complete the assessment, it will take around 2 hours

• To discuss the results from multiple scores and to come to consensus on those that differ, it will take 4 or more hours

• To discuss each indicator and come to one agreed upon score that is then entered on line, it will take 4 or more hours

Data…How do we use it???

Aggregate the data by topic area (Individual LHD Project)

• Prioritize the topic areas and select the one/s that you want to

address for you QI project:

– Establish a goal/s for the topic area

– Put the indicators into categories and use the categories to write objectives

– Use the individual indicators under the topics to help identify activities that would become components of a work plan to meet the objectives.

Data…How do we use it???

Aggregate the data according to the indicators under the standards that fall below an average score of 2.5 points capacity.

– Identify the standards with the least capacity.

– Prioritize the standards needing the most improvement.

– Create a goal for increasing capacity for the standard and use the indicators without adequate capacity for identifying objectives and work plan components for the QI plan.

15

If we have a collaborative application, how do we use the data?

• Aggregate your individual health department data by topic areas and/or standards that need the most improvement.

• Whether to work with the topic data or the standards needs to be determined by the partnering health departments

If we have a collaborative application how do we use the data?

• Analyze the data from the partnering LHDs to determine the common topic areas and/or standards that are in need of increased capacity for all involved LHDs.

• Prioritize the topic areas/standards and identify one area to address through a collaborative plan.

• Use a planning process to establish a formal mechanism to use in collaborating to increase capacity for all the partnering health departments

Topic Areas vs. Standards

• Aggregated data by topic area gives a broader impact on the capacity of the health department/s involved

• One topic area may cover capacity under multiple standards. i.e. Community Health Assessment and Improvement Plan

• Standards that need increased capacity may involve multiple topics making it more difficult to prioritize and plan

16

• Press *1 on your touch-tone phone to ask a

live questionOR

• Type your question in the “questions” box

located on the lower left side of your screen

Questions for Janan

Online Self-Assessment Software Module

Bill BarbergInsightFormation, [email protected]

763-521-4599 x13

Addressing Multiple Needs for Software (Part 1)

• Flexible On-line Scorecard–Secure and personalized for each Local Health Departments (LHD)

–Visualize Performance

•Colors, Trends, etc.–Easy Data Entry (with an audit trail)

–Calculate and Report Averages

•Average score for a Standard

•Average score for a collaborative peer group

–Comments–Ability to upload supporting information

17


• Integrated Survey Capabilities–Provide feedback for each question–On-line tool that can be revisited throughout the project–Secure and linked in with the assessment tool–Reporting capabilities


• File Upload and Collaboration– Secure and personalized by Local Health Departments– Option to provide upload files related to specific standards – Able to share files with NACCHO– Uploaded files may support multiple indicators– Version Control for Documents (view older versions)– Optional additional capabilities

• Messages (with “threaded” replies)• To-Do Lists

Use of this functionality is not required for the self-assessment process

AND…

• Must be rapidly deployed

• Must be easy to use

• Must be economical for deploying to at least 50 LHDs

18

Integrating Three Applications

Flexible On-Line Scorecard

Integrated Survey Capabilities

File Upload and Collaboration

Logging In to InsightVision

Logging In

19

Logging In

Home Page

Home Page

20

Home Page

Home Page

Home Page

21

Scoreboard

Scoreboard

Scoreboard

22

Click to view Standard “InfoSheet”

Scoreboard

View Operational Definition Indicator “InfoSheet”

23



Scoreboard

24

Collapsed to 10 Essential Services



25

Data Entry Screen

Selecting a Measure

Selecting a Measure

26

Selecting a Measure

Selecting a Measure

Adding New Actual Value

27




28

After a Value is Added


Adding a Comment

29


ScoreBoard with Data


30



Selecting a Different Scorecard

31

Selecting a Different Scorecard

Summary Scorecard

Summary Scorecard

32

Color Band Thresholds for Calculated Averages

Summary Scorecard

Drill-down to Details

33

Drill-down to Details

Responding to the Survey

Project Screen

34

Survey Landing Page

Scrolling Down

35

Scrolling Down

Scrolling Down

Scrolling Down

36

Scrolling Down

Checking the Section to Jump To


37


Survey on Metrics for a Standard

Survey on Metrics for a Standard

38

Second Question for Standard IV-A

Bottom of the Survey Page

Bottom of the Survey Page

Use << Prev not the Back Button on your Browser to Save your Responses!

39

Survey Landing Page (Close the Window when Done)

Magnifying Glass Links

Link to Upload Documents

40

Basecamp File Upload

Basecamp File Upload

Uploading a file to Basecamp

41



42

• Press *1 on your touch-tone phone to ask a

live questionOR

• Type your question in the “questions” box

located on the lower left side of your screen

Questions for Bill and NACCHO

Thank you for joining todayThank you for joining today ’’s s webcastwebcast !!

If you have additional questions, contact Penney Davis at If you have additional questions, contact Penney Davis at [email protected] or (202) 783or (202) 783--5550, Ext. 2655550, Ext. 265