Background: Many health departments collaborate with community organizations on community health improvement processes. While a number of resources exist to plan and implement a community health improvement plan (CHIP), little empirical evidence exists on how to leverage and expand partnerships when implementing a CHIP. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics of the network involved in implementing the CHIP in one large community. The aims of this analysis are to: 1) identify essential network partners (and thereby highlight potential network gaps), 2) gauge current levels of partner involvement, 3) understand and effectively leverage network resources, and 4) enable a data-driven approach for future collaborative network improvements.
Methods: We collected primary data via survey from n = 41 organizations involved in the Health Improvement Partnership of Maricopa County (HIPMC), in Arizona. Using the previously validated Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships (PARTNER) tool, organizations provided information on existing ties with other coalition members, including frequency and depth of partnership and eight categories of perceived value/trust of each current partner organization.
Results: The coalition’s overall network had a density score of 30%, degree centralization score of 73%, and trust score of 81%. Network maps are presented to identify existing relationships between HIPMC members according to partnership frequency and intensity, duration of involvement in the coalition, and self-reported contributions to the coalition. Overall, number of ties and other partnership measures were positively correlated with an organization’s perceived value and trustworthiness as rated by other coalition members.
Conclusions: Our study presents a novel use of social network analysis methods to evaluate the coalition of organizations involved in implementing a CHIP in an urban community. The large coalition had relatively low network density but high degree centralization—meaning key organizations link organizations otherwise not tightly partnering. Coalition members rated each other highly on trust, a positive sign for future partnership development efforts. Examination of network maps reveal key organizations that can be targeted for future partnership facilitation and expansion. Future network data collection will enable exploration of longitudinal trends and exploration of network characteristics versus health behavior, status, and outcome changes.
Objective: Little is known about the nationwide patterns in the use of public health informatics systems by local health departments (LHDs) and whether LHDs tend to possess informatics capacity across a broad range of information functionalities or for a narrower range. This study examined patterns and correlates of the presence of public health informatics functionalities within LHDs through the creation of a typology of LHD informatics capacities.
Methods: Data was available for 459 LHDs from the 2013 National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile survey. An empirical typology was created through cluster analysis of six public health informatics functionalities: immunization registry, electronic disease registry, electronic lab reporting, electronic health records, health information exchange, electronic syndromic surveillance system. Three-categories of usage emerged (Low, Mid, High). LHD financial, workforce, organization, governance, and leadership characteristics, and types of services provided were explored across categories.
Results: Low-informatics capacity LHDs had lower levels of use of each informatics functionalities than high-informatics capacity LHDs. Mid-informatics capacity LHDs had usage levels equivalent to high-capacity LHDs for the three most common functionalities and equivalent to low-capacity LHDs for the three least common functionalities. Informatics capacity was positively associated with service provision, especially for population-focused services.
Conclusion: Informatics capacity is clustered within LHDs. Increasing LHD informatics capacity may require LHDs with low levels of informatics capacity to expand capacity across a range of functionalities, taking into account their narrower service portfolio. LHDs with mid-level informatics capacity may need specialized support in enhancing capacity for less common technologies.
Background: Health information exchange (HIE) is an important tool for improving efficiency and quality and is required for providers to meet Meaningful Use certification from the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However widespread adoption and use of HIE has been difficult to achieve, especially in settings such as smaller-sized physician practices and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We assess electronic data exchange activities and identify barriers and benefits to HIE participation in two underserved settings.
Methods: We conducted key-informant interviews with stakeholders at physician practices and health centers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded in two waves: first using an open-coding approach and second using selective coding to identify themes that emerged across interviews, including barriers and facilitators to HIE adoption and use.
Results: We interviewed 24 providers, administrators and office staff from 16 locations in two states. They identified barriers to HIE use at three levels—regional (e.g., lack of area-level exchanges; partner organizations), inter-organizational (e.g., strong relationships with exchange partners; achieving a critical mass of users), and intra-organizational (e.g., type of electronic medical record used; integration into organization’s workflow). A major perceived benefit of HIE use was the improved care-coordination clinicians could provide to patients as a direct result of the HIE information. Utilization and perceived benefit of the exchange systems differed based on several practice- and clinic-level factors.
Conclusions: The adoption and use of HIE in underserved settings appears to be impeded by regional, inter-organizational, and intra-organizational factors and facilitated by perceived benefits largely at the intra-organizational level. Stakeholders should consider factors both internal and external to their organization, focusing efforts in changing modifiable factors and tailoring HIE efforts based on all three categories of factors. Collective action between organizations may be needed to address inter-organizational and regional barriers. In the interest of facilitating HIE adoption and use, the impact of interventions at various levels on improving the use of electronic health data exchange should be tested.