An analysis and recommendation for Sacramento County

Transcription

1 An analysis and recommendation for Sacramento County

2 A process of self evaluation and program development that promotes a locally designed strategic plan that is developed within an established framework, evaluated by a nationally recognized body, the Public Health Accreditation Board.

3 to improve and protect the health of the public by advancing the quality and performance of state and local health departments Board) (Bender, Public Health Accreditation

4 Establish a Foundation & Guide Prioritization. The assessment process leads to the foundational values and expectations leading to meaningful prioritization Performance Feedback & Quality Improvement. The assessment process provides data on our health departments strengths and areas for improvement Accountability and Credibility. Measurable outcomes provide accountability to the Board of Supervisors and our community Staff Morale & Visibility. Positive impact on staff morale with enhanced visibility for recruiting, supplemental funding, grants, research and communication.

5 1. Systematic and ongoing assessment of community health 2. Timely investigations of adverse health effects 3. Analyze the determinants of identified health needs 4. Advocate for public health, build constituencies and identify resources in the community 5. Prioritize health needs based on risk, volume and the effectiveness and feasibility of interventions 6. Develop policies and processes to address priority health needs by establishing goals and objectives to be achieved through a systematic course of action

6 7. Manage organizational, financial and human resources for competence and effectiveness and through coordination of community agencies efforts minimize the duplication of services. 8. Implement programs that translate plans and policies into services. 9. Continual quality improvement processes to assess and measure programs effectiveness and benefits 10. Inform and educate to increase public knowledge of regional issues, programs and services which contribute to individual and collective changes in health knowledge, attitudes and practices towards a healthier community.

7 From the slide presentation available from the website for the National Public Health Performance Standards of the CDC, onlinks.htm

8 Assure the public and stakeholders that the mission and vision of public health is appropriate for the community Ensure the continual assessment of systems, services and programs comparing program performance to established benchmarks Encourage professional growth Provide a forum for communication and education Foster recognition by colleagues and the public Advance strategic and program action plans

9 Self assessment is a structured beginning to the process of redesign, for today and for the future the 10 essential services framework will guide flexibility, continuous quality improvement, efficiency and effectiveness. Self assessment data will inform strategic plan development that provides an opportunity to seek accreditation the process will develop the relationships needed for a twenty first century program

10 2 Focus on the System More than just the public health agency Public health system All public, private, and voluntary entities that contribute to public health in a given area. A network of entities with differing roles, relationships, and interactions. All entities contribute to the health and well being of the community.

11 EMS Schools Neighborhood Organizations Civic Groups Non-Profit Organizations Nursing Homes Community Centers Hospitals Doctors Drug Treatment Public Health Agency Laboratories Home Health Mental Health CHCs Law Faith Institutions Enforcement Tribal Health Fire Transit Employers Corrections Elected Officials

12 Mission Vision Community Local Organizations Public & Private Partners Quality Service Strategic Initiatives Quality Improvement People Foundation

13

14

15 The Research & Evaluation Committee proposes that the Public Health Advisory Board recommend that the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors evaluate the benefits of public health accreditation and that the Board approve policy to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to begin the process of self evaluation and over time seek accreditation.

16

17 6/1/2011 Self assessment plan completedwith budget 7/1/2015 Application for accreditation submitted 1/1/2011 Policy approved 12/31/2011 Grant approved 5/1/2012 Self Assessment begins 5/31/2013 Self Assessment completed 9/1/2013-7/1/2015 Implement, measure, revise 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 1/1/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2011 7/1/2015 8/26/2011 9/1/2013 Grant submission for funding Implementation Plan Approved

18 Increasing emphasis on performance and quality Improvement Decreased funding and overall economic pressures More programs focused on health promotion Emergency preparedness

19 NPHPSP Outcomes Achieved ID strengths / weaknesses of PHS Awareness of interconnectedness of PH HD plan to make improvements Better understanding of health issues Stronger system collaboration Tangible commitments for improving PI processes that engage system partners Initiate a MAPP process Percentage of respondents indicating achievement of these outcomes was partial/medium or high Sta te Loc a l

20 Impact of NPHPSP Use on the State / Local Public Health System Leverage system staff for priorities Pool system resources More coordinated decisionmaking More grants where agency is partner State Local

21

22