OBJECTIVES: (1) Explore associations between county minority health social vulnerability index (MH-SVI) and total joint replacement (TJR), and (2) assess associations by individual-level race/ethnicity. BACKGROUND: An expanded understanding of relevant social determinants of health is essential to inform policies and practices that promote equitable access to hip and knee TJR. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare enrollees. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data were linked with MH-SVI. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the odds of TJR according to the MH-SVI quartile in which enrollees resided. A total of 10,471,413 traditional Medicare enrollees in 2018 aged 67 years or older with arthritis. The main outcome was enrollee primary TJR during hospitalization. The main exposure was the MH-SVI (composite and 6 themes) for the county of enrollee residence. Results were stratified by enrollee race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander (AANHPI), Black or African American (Black), and Hispanic enrollees comparatively had 26%-41% lower odds of receiving TJR than White enrollees. Residing in counties within the highest quartile of composite and socioeconomic status vulnerability measures were associated with lower TJR overall and by race/ethnicity. Residing in counties with increased medical vulnerability for Black and White enrollees, housing type and transportation vulnerability for AANHPI and Hispanic enrollees, minority status and language theme for AANHPI enrollees, and household composition vulnerability for White enrollees were also associated with lower TJR. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of social vulnerability were associated with lower TJR. However, the association varied by individual race/ethnicity. Implementing multisectoral strategies is crucial for ensuring equitable access to care.

Racial and ethnic minority patients are disproportionately affected by healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).Reference Argamany, Delgado and Reveles1–Reference Fortin-Leung and Wiley4 Patients may be at increased risk due to the underlying influence of several factors such as demographics and comorbidities. Studies of patient-level risk factors for specific HAIs have focused on racial and ethnic inequities,Reference Argamany, Delgado and Reveles1–Reference Fortin-Leung and Wiley4 but less is known about other patient-level characteristics that may place patients at greater risk of HAIs during an outbreak or facility-level factors that may place a facility at greater risk of experiencing HAI outbreaks. Additional data are needed beyond what is currently routinely collected in outbreak investigations. Are certain patients more likely to experience harm (eg, increased exposure to pathogens, infection, morbidity, or mortality) if they are in a facility experiencing an HAI outbreak? Are certain facilities (eg, based on populations served, geography, or facility type) more likely to experience HAI outbreaks? Further research is needed to better understand which patient and facility-level factors play a role in differential risk of HAI outbreaks, and collecting these additional data can help elucidate these factors.

The flexibility federal block grants provide recipients poses challenges for evaluation. These challenges include aggregating data on wide-ranging activities grant recipients implement and the outcomes they achieve. In 2014, we began designing an evaluation to address the challenges of assessing outcomes and to improve outcome accountability for the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. Through the use of evaluability assessment methodology, review of existing data and the literature, and key informant interviews, we developed a measurement framework to assess outcomes resulting from recipients’ ability to use grant funds to meet their locally prioritized needs. We argue our evaluation approach demonstrates that block grants, and other similarly flexible programs, can be evaluated through appropriately designed measures. Our efforts challenge the idea that flexibility presents an insurmountable barrier to evaluation and outcome accountability for federal block grants.

We describe an evidence-based framework to define and assess the impact of quality improvement (QI) in public health. Developed to address programmatic and research-identified needs for articulating the value of public health QI in aggregate, this framework proposes a standardized set of measures to monitor and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public health programs and operations. We reviewed the scientific literature and analyzed QI initiatives implemented through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Public Health Improvement Initiative to inform the selection of 5 efficiency and 8 effectiveness measures. This framework provides a model for identifying the types of improvement outcomes targeted by public health QI efforts and a means to understand QI's impact on the practice of public health.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous quality improvement is a central tenet of the Public Health Accreditation Board's (PHAB) national voluntary public health accreditation program. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the National Public Health Improvement Initiative (NPHII) in 2010 with the goal of advancing accreditation readiness, performance management, and quality improvement (QI). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the extent to which NPHII awardees have achieved program goals. DESIGN: NPHII awardees responded to an annual assessment and program monitoring data requests. Analysis included simple descriptive statistics. SETTING: Seventy-four state, tribal, local, and territorial public health agencies receiving NPHII funds. PARTICIPANTS: NPHII performance improvement managers or principal investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Development of accreditation prerequisites, completion of an organizational self-assessment against the PHAB Standards and Measures, Version 1.0, establishment of a performance management system, and implementation of QI initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 73 responding NPHII awardees, 42.5% had a current health assessment, 26% had a current health improvement plan, and 48% had a current strategic plan in place at the end of the second program year. Approximately 26% of awardees had completed an organizational PHAB self-assessment, 72% had established at least 1 of the 4 components of a performance management system, and 90% had conducted QI activities focused on increasing efficiencies and/or effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: NPHII appears to be supporting awardees' initial achievement of program outcomes. As NPHII enters its third year, there will be additional opportunities to advance the work of NPHII, compile and disseminate results, and inform a vision of high-quality public health necessary to improve the health of the population.

Since 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Emergency Preparedness cooperative agreement has supported state, territorial, and local public health departments in preparing for and responding to public health emergencies. This conceptual article describes complexities identified and lessons learned in developing community preparedness performance measures for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's public health preparedness program. Challenges arose in (a) defining community; (b) measuring meaningful community engagement; and (c) determining a strategy for collecting, aggregating, and analyzing data from diverse state, territorial, and local health departments. This article contributes to prior work describing conceptual challenges in developing standardized measures of performance at the federal level and suggests ways to potentially mitigate general performance measurement challenges as well as measurement complexities specific to community preparedness. It may be informative for those state, territorial, and local health departments currently implementing (or contemplating implementing) community preparedness activities and for individuals more generally engaged in performance measurement.