cd prioritization project

Download CD PRIORITIZATION PROJECT

Post on 06-Feb-2016

43 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROLLERS (CACDC). CD PRIORITIZATION PROJECT. SUMMARY REPORT NOVEMBER 1, 2012. OBJECTIVES. At the conclusion of this presentation participants will be able to: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • CD PRIORITIZATION PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTNOVEMBER 1, 2012*CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROLLERS (CACDC)

  • OBJECTIVESAt the conclusion of this presentation participants will be able to:Describe how the CD Prioritization Matrix can provide a systematic approach to review and document prioritization of communicable disease follow-up at the local level Discuss strategies local jurisdictions have made to try and mitigate the negative impact of budget reductions on program activities

    *

  • BACKGROUNDThe focus of the CD Prioritization Project was to determine how Local Health Jurisdictions (LHJs) were prioritizing CD Control activities in light of diminishing resourcesDue to the variability of each LHJ the goal of developing a guidance document was modified to developing a CD Prioritization MatrixThe project addressed general communicable diseases (deferred STD and TB to STD and TB Controllers respectively)- It is important to note, that based on multiple program responsibilities some responders included TB and STD in the ranking of their top ten CD priorities in the first survey

    *

  • SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CD CONTROLLERS*

  • METHODSThe literature was reviewed to identify guiding principles in the control of communicable diseasesCD Controllers were surveyed and asked to identify their top ten CD priorities and guiding principles *

  • METHODS (cont.)A matrix was developed which divided jurisdictions by population size:< 100,000 100,000 400,000>400,000The findings from the literature review and results of the surveys provided the foundation for CD Prioritization Matrix/Template*

  • GUIDING PRINCIPLESAvailability of a Public Health intervention (e.g., treatment, PEP, vaccination)Effectiveness, cost, feasibility of available Public Health interventionsThe capacity to respond (staff and/or supplies)*Public Health burden of the disease

    *

  • GUIDING PRINCIPLES (cont.)*Morbidity/mortality*IncidenceEpidemiologic characteristics (outbreak potential; changing disease trend)Public disruption (social and economic impact)Political implications(potential to drive public policy; public perceptions)*

  • FINDINGSForty-six percent of Californias jurisdictions responded to the survey.These jurisdictions account for 25.4 million California residents.Approximately 87% of responding jurisdictions indicated that they had developed a prioritization process.Of these, 86% indicated it was based on the urgency of the reported disease/condition - Title 17, section 2500, 2505.

    Approximately 92% of responding jurisdictions indicated that budget and/or staffing reductions had impacted their ability to carry out CD control functions.

    *

  • EXAMPLES OF BUDGET IMPACT*

  • EXAMPLES OF MORE EFFICIENT METHODSIncrease use of letters and phone callsReduced number of attempts to contact patientUse of syndromic surveillance to identify clusters*

  • CD SURVEY RESPONSES< 100,000*

  • CD SURVEY RESPONSES< 100,000 (cont.)*

  • CD SURVEY RESPONSES 100,000 400,000*

  • CD SURVEY RESPONSES 100,000 400,000 (cont.)*

  • CD SURVEY RESPONSES > 400,000*

  • CD SURVEY RESPONSES> 400,000 (cont.)*

  • DISCUSSION Utilization of the matrix to systematically review and document prioritization of core CD control activities Evaluation of the matrixLimitations of the Prioritization Matrix:Reflects responses from only 46% of California jurisdictionsThe number of responses for each population size is smallThe > 400,000 population category has a very large range and includes jurisdictions with one million population and higher

    *

  • DISCUSSION (cont.)

    Responses are from a specific point in time communicable disease issues are dynamic, not static, rankings may change over timePhase two of the Prioritization Project Formed workgroup to make recommendations for streamlining CD investigation formsCDPH: DCDC; CDER and IZ Branches are also reviewing the forms

    *

  • SummaryPrioritizing core CD control activities is essential in the era of diminishing resources

    Each jurisdiction must identify mission critical activities to protect our communities*

  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTSSpecial Thanks to:

    David Dassey, LA County Dept. of Public HealthMichael Tormey, LA County Dept. of Public HealthSara Cody, Santa Clara County Dept. of Public HealthDuc Vugia, CDPHKathleen Harriman, CDPHOther CDPH staff who participated on the conference callsLocal Health Jurisdictions that participated on the conference callsLocal Health Jurisdictions who completed the survey*

    *

Recommended

View more >