a proposed model for a voluntary national accreditation program for state and local public health...

A Proposed Model for a VOLUNTARY NATIONAL

ACCREDITATION PROGRAM for State and Local Public Health

Departments

Exploring Accreditation Steering Committee Members:

Georges Benjamin – APHAJanet Olszewski – ASTHO

Bobby Pestronk – NACCHOHarvey Wallace – NALBOH

Les Beitsch – Public Health Foundation

July 19-20Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Today’s 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

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

A Rising Tide…

• CDC’s Futures Initiative

• “Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century” (IOM)

• RWJF Key Stakeholder Meeting 2004

• Statewide Accreditation Programs

• Multi-state Learning Collaborative

Key Players

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENTWORKGROUP

Chair: Stephanie Bailey

STEERING COMMITTEEChair: Kaye Bender

RESEARCH & EVALUATIONWORKGROUP

Chair: Les Beitsch

FINANCE & INCENTIVES

WORKGROUPChair: Bruce Pomer

GOVERNANCE & IMPLEMENTATION

WORKGROUPChair: Rachel Stevens

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Georges Benjamin, APHA Marie Fallon, NALBOH Paul Jarris, ASTHO Pat Libbey, NACCHO

A Proposed Model for a Voluntary National Accreditation Program for State and Local Health Departments

Why accreditation now?

What is the value of the program?

How would the program run?

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

“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. TurnockJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeMay-June 2006

Governing Body

18 members selected for expertise and to represent key stakeholders

– Establishes accreditation standards

– Determines if departments meet standards

– Manages vendors

Eligible Accreditation Applicants

Governmental state or local entities with legal responsibility for public health

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

Who pays for the program’s operation?

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

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

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?

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?

Public Comment

• Comment period ends Wednesday, July 26, 2006

• Go to www.exploringaccreditation.org

• Key questions for discussion and feedback

Next Steps

• Business Case

• Steering Committee Meeting

• Final recommendations released at the end of August

Implementation

• Strategic business plan

• Standards and measures

• Pilot projects

For More Information…

www.exploringaccreditation.org

Jennifer Jimenez Priscilla Barnes

ASTHO NACCHO

(202) 371-9090 (202) 783-5550 x258