Regional Consortia: A Framework for Public Health Laboratory Collaboration and Service Sharing.

Public health laboratories (PHLs) provide specialized testing services for programs focused on the prevention and control of communicable diseases, early detection of congenital disorders, testing for antimicrobial resistance, and identification of environmental contaminants, among other responsibilities. Although national public health programs and partners provide some funding support, training, and technical resources to PHLs, no dedicated funding is provided from federal programs to fully support comprehensive PHL services across the United States or the underlying infrastructure needed for PHLs to provide and ensure their core functions and capabilities. Public health laboratories have begun to rely on a "community of practice" approach to addressing various service needs by creating and formalizing regional consortia, which are organized groups of geographically clustered PHLs that share expertise, capacities, and capabilities to enhance PHL services. The number of states participating in these networks increased from 13 to 48 from 2015 to 2020, including participation by multiple local PHLs and a territorial PHL. These consortia have enabled strengthening of partnerships and collaboration among PHLs to address regional priorities and challenges. We explore the background and evolution of regional consortia, outline some of their practices and activities, review lessons learned from these successful collaborations, and discuss the positive effect they have on the national public health system.

State public health laboratory system quality improvement activities.

The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) and the APHL Laboratory Systems and Standards Committee manage the Laboratory System Improvement Program (L-SIP). One component of L-SIP is an assessment that allows the members and stakeholders of a laboratory system to have an open and honest discussion about the laboratory system's strengths and weaknesses. From these facilitated discussions, gaps and opportunities for improvement are identified. In some cases, ideas for how to best address these gaps emerge, and workgroups are formed. Depending on resources, both monetary and personnel, laboratory staff will then prioritize the next component of L-SIP: which quality improvement activities to undertake. This article describes a sample of quality improvement activities initiated by several public health laboratories after they conducted L-SIP assessments. These projects can result in more robust linkages between system entities, which can translate into improvements in the way the system addresses the needs of stakeholders.

Laboratory services in support of public health: a status report.

OBJECTIVES: To assess Healthy People 2010 Objective 23-13 and its related sub-objectives measuring comprehensive laboratory services in support of essential public health programs, the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) collaborated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create and administer a survey of state public health laboratories (PHLs). METHODS: A committee of APHL, with representation from CDC, constructed the survey based on the 11 Core Functions of State Public Health Laboratories (hereafter, Core Functions)--the premise being that the extent to which they fulfilled these Core Functions would represent their level of providing or assuring comprehensive laboratory services in support of public health. The survey was distributed biennially to all state health agencies from 2004 to 2008, and respondents were given two months to complete it. RESULTS: The response rate for all surveys was > or = 90.2%. State PHLs were more likely to meet the sub-objectives relating to traditional functions (e.g., disease surveillance and reference testing) than other areas (e.g., food safety and environmental testing). Emergency preparedness fell in between. Overall, but most notably in the areas of food safety and training and education, there was improvement from 2006 to 2008, with the percentage of respondents who met more than half of the sub-objectives increasing from 58.7% in 2006 to 61.2% in 2008. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive laboratory services survey has been a valuable tool in measuring the laboratory infrastructure that underpins public health in the U.S. It will be necessary to continue monitoring laboratory infrastructure in this way to determine where the gaps in services exist and how they can best be addressed.