Paul K. Halverson

A Review of Instruments Assessing Public Health Preparedness

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to review instruments that assess the level of preparedness of state and local public health departments to respond to health threats such as bioterrorism. Methods. The authors examined 27 published population-based instruments for planning or evaluating preparedness that were mostly unavailable in the peer-reviewed literature. Using the Essential Public Health Services framework, the instruments were evaluated for (1) clarity of measurement parameters, (2) balance between structural and process measures, (3) evidence of effectiveness, and (4) specification of an accountable entity. Results. There was a great deal of overlap but little consistency in what constitutes “preparedness” or how it should be measured. Most instruments relied excessively on subjective or structural measures, lacked scientific evidence for measures assessed, and failed to clearly define what entity was accountable for accomplishing the task or function. Conclusion. Strategies for improvement include measure standardization, better interagency communication, and investment in public health practice research to develop the underlying evidence base required for developing quality measures and assessments.

The US Cancer Moonshot initiative

Correspondence avoid surgery in rapidly progressive or chemo-insensitive disease. 4 Genotyping of pancreatic tumours via fine needle aspiration could influence the clinical management of pancreatic cancer. Fine-needle aspiration sequencing was used to identify subgroups of patients with specific actionable mutations related to resectable or locally advanced tumours. 5 In patients with radiologically resectable or borderline resectable tumours, preoperative fine-needle aspiration sequencing could distinguish between patients with a genetic pattern associated with micrometastatic tumours, who should undergo neoadjuvant therapy, and those with a truly localised disease that would be amenable to a surgery-first strategy. Michele Reni has served as a consultant for or on the advisory boards of Celgene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Genentech, Baxalta, Novocure, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, and Merck-Serono, and has received honoraria from Celgene. Massimo Falconi has received honoraria from Celgene, Ipsen and Novartis. The other authors declare no competing interests. *Stefano Crippa, Michele Reni, Gianpaolo Balzano, Claudio Doglioni, Massimo Falconi crippa1.stefano@hsr.it Division of Pancreatic Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy (SC, GB, MF); Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital , Milan, Italy (MR); Department of Pathology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital , Milan, Italy (CD); Clinical and Translational Research Program on Pancreatic Cancer, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy (SC, MR, GB, CD, MF) e178 Barreto SG, Windsor JA. Justifying vein resection with pancreatoduodenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: e118–24 Giovinazzo F, Turri G, Katz MH, Heaton N, Ahmed I. Meta-analysis of benefit of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2016; 103: 179–91. Bapat AA, Hostetter G, Von Hoff DD, Han H. Perineural invasion and associated pain in pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2011; Sohal DP, Walsh RM, Ramanathan RK, Khorana AA. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: treating a systemic disease with systemic therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju011 Valero V, Saunders TJ, He J, et al. Reliable detection of somatic mutations in fine needle aspirates of pancreatic cancer with next-generation sequencing: implications for surgical management. Ann Surg 2016; Author’s reply Stefano Crippa and colleagues, in responding to our manuscript, 1 agree that increasing the radicality of surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, including synchronous vein resection, is suspect. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis 2 indicates that synchronous vein resection, as reported, increases mortality and decreases survival. Crippa and colleagues put forward two interesting ideas that warrant further discussion. The first is that the surgery-first approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma might ultimately be retired, given that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is usually systemic at presentation, local treatments have little effect, and neoadjuvant therapy has possible benefits. For now, the absence of high-level evidence for neoadjuvant therapy leaves largely theoretical benefits; namely that neoadjuvant therapy will reveal the biology (ie, those patients that can progress on neoadjuvant therapy will avoid futile surgery), or alter the biology (ie, those patients that are downstaged will become resectable). The preliminary results of the ALLIANCE trial 3 damages the lustre of these purported benefits with no improvement in the number of resections (10 [50%] of 20 patients who completed all preoperative therapy), and no rescue of aggressive tumour biology. This leads to the second idea, in which Crippa and colleagues suggest a biological (rather than radiological) basis for selecting patients for neoadjuvant therapy with a view to reduce the number of synchronous vein resections. Endoscopic ultrasonography- guided genotyping is a possible way to select subgroups of patients with heterogenous pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 4 who will benefit from neoadjuvant therapy. In support of this method, Hruban and colleagues 5 suggested that an intact SMAD4/DPC4 gene might be used to select surgery because there is lesser risk of distant metastases for this genotype. 6 In the future, we hope to more accurately select a subgroup of patients in whom a surgery-first approach, and even synchronous vein resection, is justified, but it is much more likely that precision neoadjuvant therapy will ultimately result in less radical surgery and the introduction of non-surgical techniques to support the response to neoadjuvant therapy. We declare no competing interests. Savio G Barreto, *John A Windsor j.windsor@auckland.ac.nz Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Gastrointestinal Oncology, and Bariatric Surgery, Medanta Institute of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Sciences, Medanta, The Medicity, Gurgaon, India (SGB); Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Upper GI Unit, Department of General Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (JAW) Barreto S, Windsor J. Justifying vein resection with pancreatoduodenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: e118–24. Giovinazzo F, Turri G, Katz MH, Heaton N, Ahmed I. Meta-analysis of benefits of portal-superior mesenteric vein resection in pancreatic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2016; Varadhachary G, Fleming J, Crane C, et al. Phase II study of preoperation mFOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation for high-risk resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (suppl 3): abstr 362. Killock D. Pancreatic cancer: a problem quartered—new subtypes, new solutions? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016; 13: 201. Hruban RH, Adsay NV. Molecular classification of neoplasms of the pancreas. Hum Pathol Iacobuzio-Donahue CA, Fu B, Yachida S, et al. DPC4 gene status of the primary carcinoma correlates with patterns of failure in patients with pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; The US Cancer Moonshot initiative We recently sent the following letter to Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden, to state that we, as Deans and Directors of Public Health schools and programmes around the USA, strongly support the goals of the Cancer Moonshot initiative to www.thelancet.com/oncology Vol 17 May 2016

Assessing the capacity of social determinants of health data to augment predictive models identifying patients in need of wraparound social services

IntroductionnA growing variety of diverse data sources is emerging to better inform health care delivery and health outcomes. We sought to evaluate the capacity for clinical, socioeconomic, and public health data sources to predict the need for various social service referrals among patients at a safety-net hospital.nnnMaterials and MethodsnWe integrated patient clinical data and community-level data representing patients social determinants of health (SDH) obtained from multiple sources to build random forest decision models to predict the need for any, mental health, dietitian, social work, or other SDH service referrals. To assess the impact of SDH on improving performance, we built separate decision models using clinical and SDH determinants and clinical data only.nnnResultsnDecision models predicting the need for any, mental health, and dietitian referrals yielded sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy measures ranging between 60% and 75%. Specificity and accuracy scores for social work and other SDH services ranged between 67% and 77%, while sensitivity scores were between 50% and 63%. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the decision models ranged between 70% and 78%. Models for predicting the need for any services reported positive predictive values between 65% and 73%. Positive predictive values for predicting individual outcomes were below 40%.nnnDiscussionnThe need for various social service referrals can be predicted with considerable accuracy using a wide range of readily available clinical and community data that measure socioeconomic and public health conditions. While the use of SDH did not result in significant performance improvements, our approach represents a novel and important application of risk predictive modeling.

Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers: Early Returns on Investment in Evidence-Based Public Health Systems Research

In todays environment of an increased need to demonstrate the value of the federal investment in public health preparedness and response (PHPR), it is encouraging to see the results of the research conducted by the Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs), which were funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).1 The research generated by the PERRCs represented in this special supplement of Public Health Reports, “Outcomes from the Federal Investment in Public Health Systems Research to Strengthen Preparedness and Response,” is not only impressive but also vital in adding to the evidence base for our PHPR efforts. The PERRCs have demonstrated the value of public health research that collectively advances our thinking and understanding of how to improve our public health systems preparedness for and response to disasters. n nInvestigators share a wealth of practical insights to help bolster the continuing development and refinement of the public health system contribution to emergency preparedness and response. The research reported in this supplement reflects a confluence of three disciplinary trends in the field: (1) the application of methods, frameworks, and analytical strategies from the evolving field of public health systems and services research (PHSSR) to the specialized practice domain of PHPR; (2) a move, generally, toward more rigorous study design within the field of public health emergency preparedness and response research; and (3) the influence of themes and analytical strategies from more established fields, such as social science-oriented disaster research, psychometrics, and operations research.

What State Health Officials Wish They Had Known and How They Learned Best

In a prior Management Moment column, which introduced our study of state and territorial health official success and critical success factors, we summarized a few important themes derived from informal group interviews with state health officials (SHOs) and senior deputies. They identified 2 aspects of success: (1) specific policy or program achievements, and (2) team building within the state health agency. A range of critical success factors including individual attributes and skills and on-the-job behaviors was perceived to contribute to these successes. Organizational structure and culture also were perceived to impact the ability of SHOs to achieve success. Most SHOs function as the chief executive officers (CEOs) of their health departments. However, unlike most CEOs, many SHOs come to the position not having had extensive managerial experience and, likewise, lack experience in a governmental setting, in public health, or both. This presents unique challenges for new SHOs. Given the importance of this role in achieving effective departmental operation as well as the optimal health of the public, we have been conducting interviews to better understand what SHOs know and don’t know before taking the job and how they learned best once in the position. In this column, we begin the process of sharing insights from our ongoing research project on SHO success. In doing so, we explore perceptions of current and past SHOs whom we formally interviewed about those things SHOs wish they had known before taking the position and also steps they took during

Fostering local health department and health system collaboration through case conferences for at-risk and vulnerable populations

In case conferences, health care providers work together to identify and address patients complex social and medical needs. Public health nurses from the local health department joined case conference teams at federally qualified health center primary care sites to foster cross-sector collaboration, integration, and mutual learning. Public health nurse participation resulted in frequent referrals to local health department services, greater awareness of public health capabilities, and potential policy interventions to address social determinants of health.