Ten organizational practices of public health: a historical perspective.

In 1988, the Institute of Medicine took a major step forward when it defined the functions of governmental public health agencies as assessment (monitoring the health of the American people), policy development (promoting the development of scientifically sound public health policy), and assurance (guaranteeing the benefits of public health for all citizens). The effort to further describe and measure the practice of public health began in January 1989 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened a meeting of public health leaders including representatives of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of County Health Officials, United States Conference of Local Health Officers, Public Health Foundation, American Public Health Association, Association of Schools of Public Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, and CDC. Consensus was reached that these core functions provided an appropriate framework. A beginning effort was made to identify the specific practices or processes required to carry out the core functions. The result of this two-year effort was the delineation of 10 organizational practices that functionally define the practice of public health, provide a basis for measuring the three core functions of public health, and also describe a continuum of problem-solving activity from problem identification to evaluation in order to redirect resources and interventions. Although extensive external examination and validation of these 10 organizational practices is called for, early application and investigation of this framework seem promising.

Implementing and assessing organizational practices in local health departments.

One of the most difficult forms of public health practice to characterize involves governmental public health agencies, especially at the local level. A lack of consensus within the public health community as to the purpose and content of organizational public health practice inhibits efforts to increase the capability of public health to address effectively its core functions of assessment, policy development, and assurance. Meaningful capacity building efforts must establish both benchmarks and expectations for the organizational practice of public health. Those markers must be established so that the impact of practice on outcomes and health status can be examined. A model identifying 10 organizational practices was established through the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with national practice organizations. Early applications of the model to public health capacity building activities have been effective. Among the applications have been approaches to surveillance of health department practice, certification of local health departments using practice guidelines, and development of leadership within the public health enterprise. Although results are promising, use of the model requires additional external examination and validation, as well as acceptance and consensus within the public health community. The development of organizational practice guidelines for public health agencies may be useful in further efforts to characterize and measure public health practice and its impact on the public's health.

Strengthening the public health system.

Although the American public health system has made major contributions to life expectancy for residents of this country over the past century, the system now faces more complex health problems that require comprehensive approaches and increased capacity, particularly in local and State public health agencies. To strengthen the public health system, concerted action is needed to meet these five critical needs: First, the knowledge base of public health workers needs to be supplemented through on-the-job training and continuing education programs. To this end, self-study courses will be expanded, and a network of regional training centers will be established throughout the country. Second, communities need dynamic leadership from public health officials and their agencies. To enhance leadership skills and expand the leadership role of public health agencies, focused personal leadership development activities, including a Public Health Leadership Institute, and national conferences will provide a vision of the future role of public health agencies. Third, local and State public health agencies need access to data on the current health status of the people in their communities and guidance from the nation's public health experts. To improve access to information resources, state-of-the-art technologies will be deployed to create integrated information and communication systems linking all components of the public health system. Fourth, local and State agencies need disease prevention and health promotion plans that target problems and develop strategies and the capacity to address them. To provide communities with structured approaches to this process, planning tools have been developed and distributed, and technical assistance will be provided to local and State health agencies to involve each community in planning,priority setting, and constituency building.Finally, public health agencies need adequate resources to fund prevention programs. To improve the use of existing Federal support and enhance the availability of new community resources, grant programs will be modified, and innovative approaches to local resource enhancement will be developed and shared.Activities in these five key areas are designed to improve the infrastructure of the public health system and its capacity to carry out effectively the core functions of public health assessment, policy development, and assurance of the availability of the benefits of public health. If the nation is to achieve the health objectives for the year 2000, the public health system-the individuals and institutions that, when working effectively together, promote and protect the health of the people-must be strengthened.

The introduction of jet injection mass vaccination into the national smallpox eradication program of Brazil.

PIP: Jet injection was 1st introduced into Brazil's smallpox eradication program in 1965 following field studies in Amapa Territory that confirmed the effectiveness of this technique. Between January 27-February 15, 1965, vaccination teams vaccinated 53,654 people in this territory, representing 89% of the target population. Local personnel with limited training were able to operate the jet injectors with few problems. Vaccination take rates were significantly higher both in primary vaccinees and revaccinees when the jet injectors as opposed to the conventional multiple pressure technique was used. Take rates ranged from 81-90% in the various villages, and there were only 2 complications reported. An average of over 600 vaccinations could be performed per hour with jet injection and total man-hours expended were 1/3 the number involved in the traditional technique. The cost per vaccination was estimated to be US$0.022 for the jet injector technique compared with 0.067 for the multiple pressure approach. Overall, the experience in Amapa Territory indicates that jet injection has obvious advantages, including a reduction in manpower needs, a reduction in transportation needs, increased efficiency, and a reduction in vaccine needs. For best use of the equipment, priority should be given to urban areas.^ieng

An immunization survey in Jamaica

Following completion of mass childhood immunization campaign in the Kingston St. Andrew Corporate Area from July through September, 1964, a survey of the Kingston metropolitan area was conducted in order to ascertain the success of the campaign in reaching the target group. A stratified random sample based on socioeconomic factors was derived. The results of this aspect of the survey indicated the broad success of the immunization programme. Data obtained on the occurrence of dengue fever and measles, as well as the status smallpox vaccination, permitted an analysis of these characteristics supplementing available information obtained through routine reporting mechanisms. This immunization survey, based on the Serfling-Sherman probability sample technique, was the first of the kind to be conducted outside the Continental United States (AU)