P1252428535VyZIv - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 10

About This Presentation

Title:

P1252428535VyZIv

Description:

Number of Views:23

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 11

Provided by: mes117

Category:

Tags: p1252428535vyziv | centers

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: P1252428535VyZIv

1
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
ASPH Resource Center Activities

Issues Discussed
Submission of requests for training to ASPH
Recommendations for Action
Old products should be archived
POC in each center for resources
Info to be submitted to resource center by
electronic submission to be reviewed by ASPH
ASPH to follow up if additional information would
be needed
Template ASPH to develop a draft form (combining
reporting form and the existing TRAIN form to
look at fields), all Centers would be allotted
time to review form, new form would be
established.
Keep in mind the work of the exemplar groups to
reduce duplication of efforts
Previous ACPHPs are asked to update existing
information for the time being

2
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
ASPH Resource Center Activities

Tabled discussion of evaluation
Proposed that we link summary reports to the
resource center
Concerns about confidentiality
Suggestions for users to evaluate one course
against another
Collect feedback
May be something for an evaluators group to
consider
Need to establish common evaluation measures to
allow for comparisons against different training
programs
Provide links to URLs to avoid repeated updates
Former SCPHPs are already reporting on similar
information
No need to recreate the system

3
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Network Coordination and Communication

Issues Discussed
Why and what do we need to communicate?
Reacting to admin issues
Sharing knowledge and inter/intragroup processes
To report
Who PI group, coordinators group, evaluators
group, entire network, by function, by region
Information sharing one way communication v.
what needs to be discussed
Continue calls on a trial for 6 months
Evaluators exemplar group may replace need for
separate evaluator call
MegaCalls would be one-way with Q/A time at the
end
Recommendations
Newsletter

4
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Network Coordination and Communication

Quarterly marketing tool
Need for face-to-face meetings in addition to
calls
May be helpful to have in varying locations
Showcase meeting held in conjunction with
ASTHO/NACCHO
Additional Comments
PI calls may be directed to specific topics to
reduce the numbers of calls that people really
need to spend their time on
Keep the ability to communicate as a priority on
calls
Have a committee to set the agenda for PI calls
Keeping this informal may allow for additional
collaboration
Exemplar groups may not cover the needs that the
evaluators group was to address this network
may need to be re-established
Listservs havent proved as beneficial

5
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Defining Brokering Network Expertise

Issue discussed
What does brokering mean linking resources with
those that need it primarily those in
state/local agencies
How do we do this look at the past CDC, ASPH
have received requests for referrals
Do we formalize this KISS, not sure what the
volume of requests received will look like may
need to determine simple protocols for doing this
Closest geographic service to the entity
requesting services be referred first, then any
additional centers would provide input
Volume is unknown once CDC project officers
become aware of the resource the volume should
increase, ASTHO will also be eager to put this to
use
Recommendations
Create a searchable database include information
on trainings, list of centers and expertise of
each center

6
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Defining Brokering Network Expertise

May also want to include individual expertise
List of ready services a Center could provide
fairly quickly
Be updateable by individual centers
How do we define expertise?
Centers can decide by themselves, and the market
will determine the use of expertise
Selection criteria degrees/training that
individuals possess and faculty appointment (NOT
RECOMMENDATIONS)
PI within the Center serves as a gatekeeper
Additional Comments
Concern that faculty appointment has such weight
practice experience loses weight that way
Concern that degrees/training carry such weight

7
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Defining Brokering Network Expertise

Anyone who comes to centers for expertise should
come with funding
This is not part of the guided work
Considered as part of ASPHs workplan
Getting others to pay for your services outside
of your existing planned work
Negotiations of services and finances would be
between Centers and agencies requesting services
Issue of combined expertise (interdisciplinary)
Requires blended expertise in terms of
credentials and combined excellence, knowledge,
and practice expertise

8
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Monitoring CPHP Contribution in Building Public
Health Preparedness Workforce

Issues Discussed
How should monitoring be done?
Look at individuals graduating U-based credit
programs/degree programs
Track them through the pipeline to see what
professions they choose
Do a retrospective study, focus on people in
state/local health departments and consider where
they got their training from
Did individuals education include preparedness
training?
May be obtained through U surveys
More difficult identifying curricula in the
graduate schools, and tracking individuals based
on such
Recommendations
Several scenarios that could be done
Prospective collection of data on graduates
Survey of people currently in practice jobs

9
Report out from Wednesday Breakout Sessions
Monitoring CPHP Contribution in Building Public
Health Preparedness Workforce

Nebraska currently tracks graduates for target
access important for education development,
policy, workforce development issues
NIOSH has a long history of tracking graduates in
academic/continuing ed programs
Report back to trainingship programs
Additional Issues
Is this really what we want to do?
Forces outside of the U system drive people
outside of public health, such studies may
reflect more poorly on us than we want it to do
Companion studies to address the whys should
be done as well
Comments
Concern that public health isnt a licensed
field, more difficult to follow people
Consider what level of specificity is really
needed here
Tap into alumni associations for assistance
through surveys