Milissa Markiewicz

Support and services provided by public health regional surveillance teams to Local Health Departments in North Carolina.

Since 2001, many states have created regional structures in an effort to better coordinate/public health preparedness and response efforts, consolidate services, and supplement local government capacity. While several studies have identified specific benefits to regionalization, including enhanced networking, coordination, and communication, little research has examined the effect of regionalization on specific preparedness and response activities. To better understand the impact of regionalizing public health workforce assets in North Carolina, a survey aimed at documenting specific support and services that Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams(PHRSTs) provide to local health departments (LHDs) was developed and administered by the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, located at the North Carolina Institute for Public Health. Of80 potential types of assistance, 26 (33%) were received by 75% or more LHDs, including 9 related to communication and 7 related to exercises. There was significant variation by PHRST region in both the quantity and quality of support and services reported by LHDs. This variation could not be explained by county- or LHD-level variables. PHRST assistance to LHDs is largely focused on communication and liaison activities, regional exercises, and planning. On the basis of these findings, regionalization may provide North Carolina with benefits consistent with those found in other studies such as improved networking and coordination. However, further research is needed to identify whether regional variation is the result of varying capacity or priorities of the PHRSTs or LHDs and to determine how much variation is acceptable.

10 Guiding Principles of a Comprehensive Internet-Based Public Health Preparedness Training and Education Program

Distance learning is an effective strategy to address the many barriers to continuing education faced by the public health workforce. With the proliferation of online learning programs focused on public health, there is a need to develop and adopt a common set of principles and practices for distance learning. In this article, we discuss the 10 principles that guide the development, design, and delivery of the various training modules and courses offered by the North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness (NCCPHP). These principles are the result of 10 years of experience in Internet-based public health preparedness educational programming. In this article, we focus on three representative components of NCCPHPs overall training and education program to illustrate how the principles are implemented and help others in the field plan and develop similar programs.

Lessons Learned from North Carolina Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams’ Regional Exercises

All-hazards exercises bring together emergency response partners at the local, regional, state, and federal levels for the primary purposes of testing response plans, defining roles and responsibilities, assessing capabilities, and making necessary improvements prior to an actual incident. To better understand the benefits and challenges of conducting regional (ie, multicounty) exercises, a study was carried out by the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health. This article describes 5 all-hazards regional exercises conducted by Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams (PHRSTs) in North Carolina in 2009 and highlights 4 unique benefits that resulted from the exercises beyond meeting explicit objectives to test plans and identify areas for improvement: (1) building relationships among response partners, (2) promoting public health assets, (3) testing multiple communications systems, and (4) training exercise evaluators. Challenges of planning and conducting regional exercises also are addressed, followed by recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of regional public health exercises.

Legal frameworks supporting public health department accreditation: lessons learned from 10 states.

CONTEXT The existence of different types of accreditation legal frameworks, embedded in complex and varying state legal infrastructures and political environments, raises important legal implications for the national voluntary accreditation program. OBJECTIVE To increase an understanding of accreditation-enabling laws nationwide. DESIGN In 2010 to 2011, the North Carolina Institute for Public Health conducted a study of state legal frameworks supporting public health department accreditation or related programs (ie, certification/assessment, performance management, and quality improvement). First, a mapping study was conducted to identify current programs and their legal frameworks. Ten states were then selected for in-depth qualitative case study. Data were gathered through semistructured interviews with public health practitioners and key stakeholders. RESULTS The findings from the mapping study delineate the accreditation, certification/assessment, performance management, or quality improvement program currently in place and the type of legal framework supporting it. The citations for statutes and regulations are also included. Among the 18 states in the sample, 4 have accreditation programs, 6 have certification/assessment programs, and 8 have performance management/quality improvement programs. Accreditation programs were most likely to have a statutory basis, while performance management and quality improvement programs were most often supported via health department policy. The findings from the case study provide greater detail about each state, reflecting public health structures, programs, legal frameworks, approaches to Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) accreditation, and legal strategies for achieving accreditation. CONCLUSIONS Early adopter states have pursued a variety of legal frameworks to develop their accreditation, certification/assessment, performance management, and quality improvement programs. With the voluntary national accreditation program scheduled to go live in late 2011, these 10 states have also carefully considered options for aligning their activities with PHAB accreditation. Lessons derived from this examination can inform public health practitioners, advocates, and elected officials about how to best structure legal frameworks to support accreditation and related activities.

Changes in public health preparedness services provided to local health departments by regional offices in North Carolina: a comparison of two cross-sectional studies

BackgroundIn 2011, seven decentralized Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams (PHRSTs) were restructured into four centralized Public Health Preparedness and Response (PHP&R) regional offices to realign preparedness priorities and essential services with appropriate infrastructure; field-based staff was reduced, saving approximately

Linking public health agencies and hospitals for improved emergency preparedness: North Carolina's public health epidemiologist program.

1 million. The objective of this study was to understand the impact that restructuring had on services provided to local health departments (LHDs) throughout North Carolina.MethodsA survey to document services that regional offices provide to LHDs in North Carolina was administered by the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center in 2013. The results were compared to a similar survey from 2009, which identified services provided by regional teams prior to restructuring.ResultsOf 69 types of assistance, 14 (20%) were received by 50% or more LHDs in 2012. Compared to 2009, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of LHDs receiving 67% (n = 47) of services. The size of the region served by regional offices was shown to inversely impact the proportion of LHDs receiving services for 25% of services. There was a slight significant decline in perceived quality of the services provided by regional teams in 2012 as comparison to 2009.ConclusionsFollowing a system-wide review of preparedness in North Carolina, the state’s regional teams were reorganized to refine their focus to planning, exercises, and training. Some services, most notably under the functions of epidemiology and surveillance and public health event response, are now provided by other state offices. However, the study results indicate that several services that are still under the domain of the regional offices were received by fewer LHDs in 2012 than 2009. This decrease may be due to the larger number of counties now served by the four regional offices.