A Proposed Model for a VOLUNTARY NATIONAL ACCREDITATION PROGRAM for State and Local Public Health Departments

1
A Proposed Model for a VOLUNTARY NATIONAL
ACCREDITATION PROGRAM for State and Local Public
Health Departments

• Exploring Accreditation
• Steering Committee Members
• Georges Benjamin APHA
• Janet Olszewski ASTHO
• Bobby Pestronk NACCHO
• Harvey Wallace NALBOH
• Les Beitsch Public Health Foundation
• July 19-20
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2
Todays Objectives

• Briefly describe the process that led to this
  proposed model
• Outline the major elements of the proposed model
• Obtain feedback from you on the proposed model
  and its feasibility

3
Project Goal

• Design a model voluntary national accreditation
  program for state and local (governmental) public
  health departments and determine whether it is
  feasible and desirable to implement

4
A Rising Tide

• CDCs Futures Initiative
• Future of the Publics Health in the 21st
  Century (IOM)
• RWJF Key Stakeholder Meeting 2004
• Statewide Accreditation Programs
• Multi-state Learning Collaborative

5
Key Players
6
A Proposed Model for a Voluntary National
Accreditation Program for State and Local Health
Departments
7
Why accreditation now?
8
What is the value of the program?
9
How would the program run?
10
Accrediting Entity

• New non-profit organization
• - Manage the accreditation process
• - Evaluate effectiveness and impact
• - Provide orientation to the accreditation
  process
• - Advocate for technical assistance
• - Relate to existing state programs

11

• A voluntary national accreditation program
  should reinforce rather than replace efforts
  that establish performance standards for health
  departments, promote rather than pre-empt
  widespread use of tools like NPHPSP and MAPP for
  self-assessment and improvement, and ultimately
  unify rather than unlink organizational
  performance and human resource management
  activities within public health departments.

Bernard J. Turnock Journal of Public Health
Management and Practice May-June 2006
12
Governing Body

• 18 members selected for expertise and to
  represent key stakeholders
• Establishes accreditation standards
• Determines if departments meet standards
• Manages vendors

13
Eligible Accreditation Applicants

• Governmental state or local entities with legal
  responsibility for public health

14
Standards Development

• Promote pursuit of excellence, improve
  performance, and strengthen accountability
• Consider existing and developing performance
  improvement work
• Create specific standards around 11 domains
  based on essential services

15
Who pays for the programs operation?
16
Financing

• Start-Up
• Grant-makers
• Government agencies
• Health department associations
• Operations
• Applicant fees
• Other sources

• Controlling Costs
• Phased development
• Efficient process design
• Prudent use of resources
• Providing benchmarks to applicants
• Building volunteer support

17
Incentives

• Orientation of the applicant staff to the
  process
• Readiness review and self-assessment tools
• Sources for consultation on ways to meet and
  exceed standards
• Recognition of their accomplishments
• Access to funding support for quality and
  performance improvement and infrastructure needs
  identified in the accreditation process
• Opportunities to pilot new programs and
  processes based on proven performance levels
• Streamlined application processes for grants and
  programs

18
Program Evaluation

• Is the accrediting entity operating effectively?
• Is the accreditation process reasonable?
• Is the orientation for applicant staff effective?
• Who is participating and are they satisfied?
• Are standards and measures reliable and valid?
• What performance improvements have resulted?
• Is the program perceived as credible by
  applicants and decision-makers?

19
Research

• Critical for building an evidence base about the
  value of accreditation
• Does accreditation result in improved agency
  performance?
• Does agency performance influence health
  outcomes?

20
Public Comment

• Comment period ends Wednesday, July 26, 2006
• Go to www.exploringaccreditation.org
• Key questions for discussion and feedback

21
Next Steps

• Business Case
• Steering Committee Meeting
• Final recommendations released at the end of
  August

22
Implementation

• Strategic business plan
• Standards and measures
• Pilot projects

23
For More Information

• www.exploringaccreditation.org
• Jennifer Jimenez Priscilla Barnes
• ASTHO NACCHO
• [phone] [phone] x258