Opportunities to advance quality improvement in public health.
Evaluation Services, North Carolina Institute for Public Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599, USA. maryJournal of public health management and practice: JPHMP (Impact Factor: 1.47). 01/2010; 16(1):8-10. DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181c027e6
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives. We conducted case studies of 10 agencies that participated in early quality improvement efforts. Methods. The agencies participated in a project conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (2007-2008). Case study participants included health directors and quality improvement team leaders and members. We implemented multiple qualitative analysis processes, including cross-case analysis and logic modeling. We categorized agencies according to the extent to which they had developed a quality improvement culture. Results. Agencies were conducting informal quality improvement projects (n = 4), conducting formal quality improvement projects (n = 3), or creating a quality improvement culture (n = 4). Agencies conducting formal quality improvement and creating a quality improvement culture had leadership support for quality improvement, participated in national quality improvement initiatives, had a greater number of staff trained in quality improvement and quality improvement teams that met regularly with decision-making authority. Agencies conducting informal quality improvement were likely to report that accreditation is the major driver for quality improvement work. Agencies creating a quality improvement culture were more likely to have a history of evidence-based decision-making and use quality improvement to address emerging issues. Conclusions. Our findings support previous research and add the roles of national public health accreditation and emerging issues as factors in agencies' ability to create and sustain a quality improvement culture. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print November 14, 2013: e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301413).American Journal of Public Health 11/2013; 104(1). DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301413 · 4.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:: This study compares pre- and posttest Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI-Self) scores for public health leaders who completed the Regional Institute for Health and Environmental Leadership (RIHEL) training program at least 2 years earlier; it seeks to identify factors contributing to changes in practices and overall leadership development for public health and environment leaders. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING:: Sixty-seven alumni who completed the yearlong RIHEL program between 1999 and 2002 participated through mailed surveys and phone interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:: The Leadership Practices Inventory, an alumni leadership development survey, and interviews provided evidence for positive change in leadership practices. RESULTS:: Alumni experienced significant increases in pre- to post-LPI scores, collaborative leadership practices, and communication skills consistent with those taught in the RIHEL program. Women presented higher Encourage the Heart scores than men. Years of public health service negatively correlated with Total Change scores of LPI. The RIHEL program as a training intervention was credited significantly with changes in leadership practices for alumni studied. Nine influencing factors were identified for leadership development and are embedded in a Leadership Development Influence Model. These include self-awareness, a leadership development framework, and skills important in multiple leadership situations. Confidence was both an encouraging factor and a resulting factor to the increased exemplary leadership practices. CONCLUSION:: Leadership development in public health must include multiple factors to create consistent increases in exemplary leadership practices. While the study focused on the leadership development process itself, RIHEL training was reported as having a positive, significant impact overall in participant leadership development. This study adds research data as a foundation for training content areas of focus. Studies to further test the Leadership Development Influence Model will allow public health training programs to pinpoint training where it can make a difference to improve leadership development in the public health sector.Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 03/2013; DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182703de2 · 1.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is growing interest and investment in improving the quality of public health services and outcomes. Following the lead of other sectors, efforts are underway to introduce systematic quality improvement (QI) tools and approaches to state and local public health agencies. Little is known, however, about how to describe and reliably measure the level of QI maturity within a public health agency. The authors describe the development of a QI Maturity Tool using research from the fields of organizational design, psychology, health care, and complexity theory. The 37-item assessment tool is based on four quality domains derived from the literature: (a) organizational culture, (b) capacity and competency, (c) practice, and (d) alignment and spread. The tool was designed to identify features of an organization that may be enhancing or impeding QI; monitor the impact of efforts to create a more favorable environment for QI; and define potential cohorts of public health agencies for evaluation purposes. The article presents initial steps in testing and validating the QI Maturity Tool including: (a) developing a theoretical framework, (b) assuring face and content validity, (c) determining the tool's reliability based on estimates of internal consistency, (d) assessing the dimensionality, and (f) determining the construct validity of the instrument. The authors conclude that there is preliminary evidence that the QI Maturity Tool is a promising instrument. Further work is underway to explore whether self-reported survey results align with an agency's actions and the products of their QI efforts.Evaluation & the Health Professions 02/2012; 35(2):119-47. DOI:10.1177/0163278711433065 · 1.67 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.