Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 45
2
Integration: A View from the Ground
R
ecognizing that there are no broadly accepted or implemented mod-
els of primary care and public health integration, the committee
sought to identify promising examples that would both demonstrate
the potential for integration and guide the development and implementa-
tion of future integration models. To this end, the committee reviewed the
published and gray literature. This chapter describes this literature review,
presents key principles derived from the review, and highlights examples
thus identified in communities across the United States that both embody
the key principles and respond to the committee’s statement of task.
PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF INTEGRATION
As part of its literature review, the committee looked for previous
reviews of primary care and public health integration. This search yielded
only two major efforts that addressed this topic directly, undertaken by
McMaster University (Martin-Misener et al., 2009) and the American
Medical Association (Sloane et al., 2009). However, a study conducted by
Lasker and the Committee on Medicine and Public Health (1997) provided
valuable insights into the integration of medicine and public health. The
committee believes all three of these studies are worth highlighting.
45
OCR for page 46
46 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
McMaster University Review of Primary Care
and Public Health Collaborations
In 2008, McMaster University conducted a literature review to gain
an understanding of and derive lessons from examples of primary care
and public health collaborations (Martin-Misener et al., 2009). A rigorous
search resulted in a collection of 114 articles, published between 1988 and
2008, that described examples of such collaboration occurring across Can-
ada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and
Western Europe. After reviewing these examples, the authors drew a num-
ber of conclusions about why primary care and public health entities have
engaged in collaboration, the types of activities typically carried out in such
collaborations, and the major facilitators of and barriers to collaboration.
The authors note the wide variety of examples they collected. Differ-
ences among localities in organizational structure and community health
needs have led primary care and public health to connect in different ways.
Collaborative efforts have arisen from policy mandates; from a natural
alignment of goals; and in response to specific, shared challenges. These
collaborations also have engaged in a broad range of activities. Box 2-1
lists the major areas of activity appearing in the McMaster literature review.
The review also found that some collaborations were more successful
than others. From the available literature, the authors derived a number of
factors that tended to influence the success of collaborative efforts. Table
2-1 identifies some of the facilitators of and barriers to collaboration across
different levels of the health care system.
Successful collaborations were found to result in improvements in
health service delivery, funding and resource allocation, and population
health outcomes. The authors recommend further research and evaluation
of methods for collaboration between primary care and public health.
BOX 2-1
Areas of Activity in Primary Care and
Public Health Collaborations
• •
Community activities Professional education
• •
Health services Social marketing and communication
• •
Information systems Steering and advisory functions
• •
Quality assurance and evaluation Evidence-based practice
• •
Prevention Health promotion and education
• •
Teamwork and management Needs assessment and planning
SOURCE: Martin-Misener et al., 2009.
OCR for page 47
47
INTEGRATION
TABLE 2-1 Facilitators of and Barriers to Primary Care and Public
Health Collaboration
Facilitators Barriers
• Government endorsement of • Lack of stable funding for
Systems Level
the value of collaboration collaborative projects
• Sustained government • Lack of adequate funding for
funding evaluation of collaboration
• Resources available through innovations
• Separate, entrenched bureaucracies
pooling and sharing
• Professional education for medical services and public
emphasizing a system- health
• Lack of an adequate information
wide approach to working
collaboratively structure
Organizational • Multiprofessional • Lack of a common agenda or vision
• A focus on individuals and short-
Level involvement
• Joint planning by primary term results
• Resource limitations
care, public health, and the
• Lack of capacity to coordinate and
community
• Clear lines of accountability manage disparate, diverse, and large
• Use of a standardized, shared teams
• Limited understanding of the needs
system for collecting data and
disseminating information of communities
• Clear roles and • Resistance to change
Interactional
• Competing priorities and agendas
Level responsibilities for all
• Poor rapport between primary care
partners
• Trust, tolerance, and respect and public health, as well as with
for partners the community
• Effective communication • Inadequate understanding of specific
roles and interdisciplinary teamwork
SOURCE: Martin-Misener et al., 2009.
American Medical Association Review of Partnerships Between
Primary Care Practices and Public Health Agencies
In 2009, the American Medical Association and the University of North
Carolina conducted a review of partnerships between primary care practices
and public health agencies (Sloane et al., 2009). Through a review of the
published literature and a qualitative study of 48 programs, the authors
examined the structure of successful collaborations and the factors that led
to partnership formation. They found that most of the partnerships they
reviewed addressed one of three issues: increasing access of underserved in-
dividuals and populations to primary care, enhancing prevention resources
for individuals and communities, and improving the quality of care for
people with chronic diseases (Sloane et al., 2009). Partnerships typically
OCR for page 48
48 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
were initiated by public health professionals. Primary care physicians who
were receptive to partnership generally embraced a community-based ap-
proach to medicine. Incentives for primary care practices and public health
agencies to interact included grant requirements that encouraged collabo-
ration, a mutual benefit from collaboration or a shared goal, and positive
experiences in prior professional relationships. The more successful part-
nerships often developed a shared mission with a formalized structure and
clearly defined roles. They were driven by strong leadership and established
ongoing communication between the two sectors.
Lasker and the Committee on Medicine and Public Health
Review of Medicine and Public Health Collaborations
In 1997, Lasker and colleagues conducted a study of collaborations
between medicine and public health to support the Medicine and Public
Health Initiative (Lasker and Committee on Medicine and Public Health,
1997). Examples of such collaborations were solicited from medicine and
public health professionals, government health agencies, and other relevant
stakeholders. The authors collected and reviewed more than 400 examples,
and assessed their structure and the relationships involved. A wide variety
of organizations were found to have a role in these collaborations. Box 2-2
lists some of the types of organizations that were identified.
These organizations were found to interact in different ways and for
different purposes. The authors identified six “synergies” describing the
most prominent ways in which resources and skills were combined in a
medicine and public health collaboration. Table 2-2 presents these syner-
gies, along with examples of how they are carried out.
It is important to note that the synergies were not exclusive of one
BOX 2-2
Types of Organizations Involved in Medicine
and Public Health Collaborations
• •
Medical practices Academic institutions
• •
Community-based clinics Professional associations
• •
Laboratories and pharmacies Voluntary health organizations
• •
Hospitals Community groups
• •
Managed care organizations The media
• Foundations
SOURCE: Lasker and Committee on Medicine and Public Health, 1997.
OCR for page 49
49
INTEGRATION
TABLE 2-2 Synergies of Medicine and Public Health Collaboration
Synergy Examples
• Bring new personnel and services to
Improving health care by coordinating
services for individuals existing practice sites
• Establish “one-stop” centers
• Coordinate services provided at different
sites
• Establish free clinics
Improving access to care by establishing
• Establish referral networks
frameworks to provide care for the
• Enhance clinical staffing at public health
uninsured
facilities
• Shift indigent patients to mainstream
medical settings
• Use population-based information to
Improving the quality and cost-
effectiveness of care by applying a enhance clinical decision making
• Use population-based strategies to
population perspective to medical practice
“funnel” patients to medical care
• Use population-based analytic tools to
enhance practice management
• Use clinical encounters to build
Using clinical practice to identify and
address community health problems community-wide databases
• Use clinical opportunities to identify
and address underlying causes of health
problems
• Collaborate to achieve clinically oriented
community health objectives
• Conduct community health assessments
• Mount health education campaigns
Strengthening health promotion
• Advocate health-related laws and
and health protection by mobilizing
community campaigns regulations
• Engage in community-wide campaigns to
achieve health promotion objectives
• Influence health system policy
Shaping the future direction of the health
• Engage in cross-sector education and
system by collaborating around policy,
training, and research training
• Conduct cross-sector research
SOURCE: Lasker and Committee on Medicine and Public Health, 1997.
OCR for page 50
50 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
another; rather, an example often reflected more than one synergy. In fact,
some of the most successful examples were ones in which partners com-
bined their resources to address multiple concerns.
THE COMMITTEE’S LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the committee’s literature review was twofold: to gain
an understanding of the prevalence of and methods employed by current
and recent integration efforts, and to identify a small set of illustrative
programs from which key principles for successful integration could be
derived. To meet those aims, the review was limited to articles describing
an operational (not a theoretical) program that was active in 2000 or later
and involved some level of interaction between primary care and public
health with the goal of improving population health. Both domestic and
international examples were included.
To identify such programs, the committee conducted a search of peer-
reviewed journal articles using the PubMed and Medline databases. Key-
words relating to the overarching topic areas of primary care, public health,
integration, and population health were linked in various combinations
using Boolean operators. To supplement the formal literature search, the
committee also conducted a grey literature search using the New York
Academy of Medicine’s grey literature database and the National Techni-
cal Information Service database. Additionally, examples of integration
were solicited by querying committee members, stakeholders (including the
Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA] and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]), advocacy and professional orga-
nizations, and researchers who had done work in the field). After an initial
scan of titles and abstracts for basic relevancy, more than 3,000 articles or
case descriptions were identified. Abstracts and summaries of those articles
were reviewed for general appropriateness, and any article or case descrip-
tion that potentially included a useful example of primary care and public
health integration was identified for further review. This process yielded
632 articles.
Finally, these remaining articles were carefully read and evaluated based
on the strength of linkages between primary care and public health, as well
as the robustness of population health outcomes. Preference was given to
examples that involved interaction between distinct primary care and public
health entities, with an emphasis on the inclusion of health departments.
This process yielded a final 100 articles or case descriptions that contained
examples of integration for further review.
This set of examples was delivered to commissioned authors Philip
Sloane and Katrina Donahue, who assessed them based on:
OCR for page 51
51
INTEGRATION
• scope of the population served;
• length of time the program was/has been in operation;
• degree of collaboration between primary care and public health;
• robustness of the evaluation and outcomes; and
• degree of innovation (using the authors’ subjective assessments).
The committee supplemented this analysis with additional examples from
its members’ own expertise to create a final portfolio of examples.
Limitations
The most striking aspect of the committee’s literature review was the
relatively limited number of articles that described robust examples of pri-
mary care and public health integration supported by outcomes. This lack
of strong examples may be attributable in part to limitations of the review
itself. First, an article describing an example of primary care and public
health integration may not identify itself as such; rather, integration ex-
amples often are presented as a potential solution to a specific health prob-
lem or organizational challenge. Therefore, a search tailored to identifying
instances of terms related to primary care, public health, and integration
used in conjunction with one another potentially could miss many relevant
examples. At the outset, in recognition of this potential limitation, the
initial search cast a broad net, yielding more than 3,000 results; however,
relevant articles may have been overlooked. In an effort to fill some of these
gaps, stakeholders, including HRSA and CDC, and committee members
were asked to submit additional relevant examples.
A second limitation is that the review was restricted to published
articles. There may be a number of effective integration examples in prac-
tice that have neither been described nor evaluated in the peer-reviewed
literature.
A third limitation is that the articles reviewed often provide brief or
incomplete descriptions of programs. Many of these articles were written to
highlight a program’s impact on specific health outcomes or to describe spe-
cific program elements, and articles often were tailored to the perspective of
the audience for which they were written—for example, clinical and public
health audiences. As a result, it was often difficult to assess the degree and
breadth of integration in a program or obtain a complete understanding of
the program’s impact.
Finally, it is possible that there are fewer examples of integration under
way than the committee anticipated, so that fewer were uncovered than
was expected.
Based on these limitations, the committee believes that the integration
OCR for page 52
52 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
of primary care and public health could be facilitated by increased evalua-
tion efforts. A series of thorough evaluations of integration efforts currently
under way would assist in building a knowledge base, which in turn would
enable a richer understanding of the processes by which integration can
occur successfully and of the outcomes associated with integration.
Breadth of Examples
Even with the limitations outlined above, the literature contained many
promising examples of integration. These examples reflect a wide variety
of approaches and highlight a number of ways in which primary care and
public health can be aligned to address community health concerns.
Focus Areas for Integration
Many of the integration examples uncovered by the literature review
converged around a specific health issue that was identified as a community
area of concern. At times these issues were identified by formal community
assessments, but more commonly they were recognized by leaders of one or
more of the partners using supporting data. The focus of nearly all of these
examples fell into one of three categories: chronic disease, prevention and
health promotion, or the health of specific populations.
Chronic disease Chronic diseases often have a large public health impact
and can require the application of a diverse array of care and management
techniques. A number of communities have discovered that the actions of
primary care or public health alone are not sufficient to effectively mitigate
the impact of chronic diseases on population health. Instead, they have
endorsed collaborative, coordinated efforts focused on prevention, care,
and outreach that have had some positive results. For example, in response
to a statewide increase in the prevalence of diabetes and associated com-
plications, the Michigan Department of Community Health implemented
the Michigan Diabetes Outreach Network. The network consists of six
independent, regional networks that carry out the Department of Com-
munity Health’s mission to “create innovative partnerships to strengthen
diabetes prevention, detection, and treatment” (Constance et al., 2002,
p. 54). The regional networks partner with and support health profession-
als, businesses, and community groups to identify and reduce disparities in
diabetes care, strengthen community resources, enhance knowledge of the
disease among health care professionals, raise community awareness, and
facilitate data collection and use. Activities of the regional networks have
included public awareness campaigns; the development of systems for use
in medical practice to promote adherence to established care guidelines; the
OCR for page 53
53
INTEGRATION
implementation of health professional education and certification programs
in diabetes care; and the initiation of a data collection and reporting system
for use by home care providers, physician offices, and diabetes support
groups. The program has demonstrated improved health outcomes for
Michigan residents with diabetes, as well as a dramatic expansion of the
reach and prevalence of community awareness events and health profes-
sional education programs (Constance et al., 2002).
Prevention and health promotion Chapter 1 highlights the importance
of prevention and health promotion activities for improving population
health. The impact of these types of activities depends on the ability to
reach as much of the target population as possible in a meaningful way.
Both primary care and public health have critical roles in prevention and
health promotion and are positioned to carry out these roles with differ-
ent sets of resources and relationships within the community. Many of the
examples from the literature review show that, by linking primary care,
public health, and the community, coordinated, cooperative approaches to
prevention and health promotion can expand the reach and effectiveness
of such endeavors.
In a number of cases, a public health partner would seek the involve-
ment of primary care providers to assist in a key public health campaign.
These collaborative efforts sought to utilize the individual relationship
between provider and patient to complement population-level interven-
tions. Some examples include public health personnel training primary care
providers to deliver evidence-based behavioral interventions and linking
primary care providers to public health and community resources such as
tobacco quit-lines (Larson et al., 2006; Rothemich et al., 2010).
Another approach for integrating around prevention involves primary
care, public health, and community groups combining efforts to ensure the
broad delivery of clinical preventive services at diverse venues throughout
communities. Sickness Prevention Achieved through Regional Collabora-
tion (SPARC), a nonprofit agency, implemented this type of method in
the New England area (Shenson et al., 2008). In response to low rates of
adult vaccination and cancer screening rates in the area, SPARC leadership
recognized that primary care alone could not bear the responsibility of en-
suring the community-wide delivery of preventive services. Instead, SPARC
positioned primary care providers as partners in a community-spanning
coalition of public health and community resources. The program brought
together public health agencies, hospitals, social service organizations, and
advocacy groups to form a network of prevention activities. Coordination
among these groups and with primary care helped ensure a broader reach
for prevention services and avoided duplication of effort. The inclusion of
a variety of community partners led to the development and widespread
OCR for page 54
54 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
implementation of innovative approaches tailored to community needs.
SPARC’s initiatives have been associated with regional improvements in
rates of vaccination and cancer screening, and the SPARC coalition-based
model has been replicated successfully in other communities (Shenson et
al., 2008).
Health of specific populations Providing for the health of certain popula-
tions, such as the uninsured, who can be difficult to reach, or older persons
living alone who require care outside of a health care delivery setting can
present challenges that are difficult for either primary care or public health
to handle alone. The Iowa Department of Public Health developed its 1st
Five Initiative to address gaps in service provision for young children with
risk factors for and evidence of developmental delay during the first years
of life (Silow-Carroll, 2008). The program links primary care providers to
public health resources and mental and behavioral health services. Features
of the program include training primary care providers in assessment of
social and emotional development, providing a public health care coordina-
tor to whom the primary care providers could refer children who screened
positive, using the coordinator to link the child and family to intervention
services, and providing feedback to the primary care provider on the status
and outcomes of the referral. This system fostered a coordinated, collabora-
tive approach to care for the developmental needs of at-risk children. Build-
ing on its early successes, the initiative had recruited 39 practices serving
41,000 children by 2008 (Silow-Carroll, 2008).
Organization for Integration
A striking feature that emerged from the literature review is the number
of different ways in which integrated efforts were organized. A wide variety
of entities were involved in activities and programs that linked primary care
and public health. These entities included not only a range of primary care
and public health actors but also a number of other contributors, such as
businesses, hospitals, academic institutions, and community groups. Ad-
ditionally, integrated projects were initiated by public health entities, by
primary care entities, and by neutral third-party conveners of the two fields,
and across examples the extent of the contribution from primary care and
public health was varied. Much of this variation is attributable to differ-
ences in communities across the country in terms of available primary care,
public health, and community resources, as well as in their populations’
makeup and health priorities. Successful integration efforts often were tai-
lored to the community’s strengths and needs.
A number of examples were initiated and led by public health enti-
ties, often health departments. For instance, the health department of
OCR for page 55
55
INTEGRATION
Alachua County, Florida, joined with the local public school system and
the University of Florida to initiate a program designed to increase rates
of influenza vaccination among school-aged children (Tran et al., 2010).
A critical component of the program’s success, however, was establishing
linkages with primary care providers. Through the vaccination program,
children received a free nasal-spray flu vaccine in school, regardless of their
insurance status. Children who were ineligible for this vaccine because of
underlying medical conditions were referred to their provider for evaluation
and the flu shot. This kept private pediatricians in the medical care loop for
children with underlying medical conditions, a key component of the medi-
cal home concept, as well as a key element in maintaining strong support
from community physicians. Both pediatricians and the health department
input flu vaccination status into the state’s registry so both groups could
share information about their patients.1 In the 3 years since the program
became fully operational, immunization rates have increased. In 2009-
2010, the program was able to immunize approximately 55 percent of the
student population, and an additional 10 percent who could not receive
the nasal-spray flu vaccine for medical reasons were immunized by their
care providers. In schools where 80 percent or more of the students were
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, the immunization rate went from
12 percent in the 2006 pilot program to 47 percent in 2009-2010 (Tran et
al., 2010). Immunization rates for 2010-2011 were similar.2
While a majority of the integration examples examined by the commit-
tee featured public health-led ventures, there were instances of primary care
entities initiating successful collaborations. In Milwaukee, the Sixteenth
Street Community Health Center initiated a Community Lead Outreach
Project designed to assist in the Milwaukee Health Department’s efforts to
reduce lead poisoning rates in children by reaching out to an underserved
neighborhood. The program employed a team of community outreach
workers, led by a nurse-coordinator from the health center. The team
conducted home visits, provided blood testing, performed environmen-
tal surveys, and reported results to both the health center and the health
department for follow-up care and possible intervention. The program
resulted in significant decreases in the prevalence of lead poisoning in the
area (Schlenker et al., 2001).
In some instances, primary care and public health were brought to-
gether by a neutral convener, often a nonprofit organization or academic
institution. In the SPARC initiative, discussed previously, a nonprofit orga-
nization formed a coalition of primary care, public health, and community
groups to take a comprehensive approach to expanding the delivery of
1 Personal communication, C. Tran and Parker Small, University of Florida, November 2011.
2 Personal Communication, C. Tran, University of Florida, December 2011.
OCR for page 68
68 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Using Electronic Health Records to Support High-Quality Primary Care
In line with the Take Care New York agenda, NYC DOHMH has
taken aggressive steps to support high-quality health care and the active
management of chronic diseases. At the center of this effort is the Primary
Care Information Project, which supports physicians in adopting the use of
electronic health records to improve population health. The Primary Care
Information Project helped initiate the New York City Regional Electronic
Adoption Center for Health (REACH) to assist providers in achieving
meaningful use of electronic health records, with the capacity to sup-
port 4,500 providers. More than 3,500 providers have already enrolled in
REACH to meet the meaningful-use criteria and better serve their commu-
nities (NYC Reach, 2011).
To further its promotion of effective use of information technology,
NYC DOHMH launched Health eHearts, a pay-for-performance incentive
program that rewards small practices and community health centers for
achieving excellent heart health among their patients. Designed to reduce
health disparities, Health eHearts uses clinical quality outcomes generated
from electronic health records and provides incentives up to $25,000 per
quarter to practices showing qualifying improvements in the use of aspirin,
blood pressure and cholesterol management, and the promotion of smoking
cessation to improve cardiovascular health. By the end of 2010, 42 practices
had received an average of $38,000 each for their efforts in these areas
(Marcello et al., 2011). Also in 2010, NYC DOHMH launched the Panel
Management Program to help primary care providers maintain continuity
of care for high-risk patients and those with chronic disease. Using registry
features of electronic health records, prevention outreach specialists iden-
tify patients who are at risk for diseases associated with hypertension, high
cholesterol, smoking, and diabetes, and then contact them with reminders
about disease management activities such as making appointments, filling
prescriptions, and receiving vaccinations (New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, 2011).
Monitoring and Surveillance
The Panel Management Program’s capacity for monitoring and evalu-
ation is grounded in the Community Health Survey, which regularly sur-
veys 10,000 New York City residents to gather data on a variety of health
measures. In 2004, a community-level Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey was conducted, modeled after the nationwide survey conducted
by CDC. The data thus collected resulted in several publications released
by NYC DOHMH, including Health Bulletin, which directs its public
health messages to city residents (Frieden et al., 2008). In addition, NYC
OCR for page 69
69
INTEGRATION
DOHMH was one of the first local health departments to implement syn-
dromic surveillance—the routine surveillance of health care encounters to
detect public health threats—in part to address the threat of a potential
bioterrorist attack. NYC DOHMH has partnered with health care facilities
to implement systems that provide its staff with nonconfidential data for
daily analysis aimed at identifying disease trends and outbreaks by scanning
for clustering by symptoms or health care-seeking behavior. NYC DOHMH
currently monitors visits to 48 city emergency departments. Every day,
hospitals transmit an electronic file to NYC DOHMH containing patients’
chief complaint, age, sex, zip code, and time of visit. The chief complaint
is automatically coded as one of four syndromes (respiratory, fever-flu,
vomiting, or diarrhea), and standardized analyses are performed 7 days a
week by a corps of analysts at NYC DOHMH. Syndromic surveillance has
enhanced the ability of public health to monitor community illness in a way
that is timelier, though less specific, than traditional surveillance based on
laboratory or provider reports (Heffernan et al., 2004).
Community Outreach
NYC DOHMH actively engages with local communities to promote
health education and access to care. It is participating in two home visit-
ing programs for new mothers. One of these programs, the Nurse-Family
Partnership, aligns nurses with first-time mothers for weekly to biweekly
visits until the child is 2 years old (Nurse-Family Partnership, 2011). The
second program, the Newborn Home Visiting Program, is localized to
Brooklyn, Harlem, and the Bronx. A health worker attempts to visit every
new mother to promote health education, breastfeeding, and the reduction
of environmental risks in the home.
NYC DOHMH also conducts community outreach to promote cancer
screening. In 2003, it established the Colonoscopy Patient Navigator Pro-
gram to ensure that populations facing greater screening obstacles receive
a colonoscopy. The navigators are tasked with helping patients navigate
the health system and overcome barriers to screening. By 2007, the Colo-
noscopy Patient Navigator Program had assisted more than 25,000 New
Yorkers in undergoing colonoscopies. Through this program and other
initiatives of Take Care New York, NYC DOHMH has seen remarkable
gains in cancer screening, attributable mainly to its ability to partner with
local care providers and communities. Overall rates of colon cancer screen-
ing have increased substantially since the introduction of Take Care New
York—by 43 percent from 2002 to 2006; by 2009, 66 percent of adults
over age 50 had been screened for colon cancer within the previous 10 years
(Frieden et al., 2008; Marcello et al., 2011).
OCR for page 70
70 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Principles of Integration Embedded in the Case Studies
The case studies described here illustrate the principles, presented ear-
lier, that form the foundation for integrating primary care and public health.
Each of these case studies exemplifies a shared goal of population
health improvement. This goal was realized in different ways in different
locations. In New York, for example, the department of public health took
the initiative, but only through joint efforts with primary care providers
were improved outcomes possible. In San Francisco, collaborative efforts
built on the success of Healthy San Francisco as a health access innovation,
and then evolved to embrace a broader vision of population health.
The case studies have been presented within the context of their local
communities because one unifying theme is the local variability seen in
sustainable examples of integration. Community engagement is required
throughout the process. In San Francisco, the community was engaged in
diverse ways—not only through the traditional primary care and public
health sectors but also through community-based social service organiza-
tions, political leaders, and academic researchers. Community Care of
North Carolina offers a statewide organizational structure, but provides
for flexibility for each of the 14 local networks to take action based on lo-
cal strengths and needs. In Durham, for example, community engagement
guided integration efforts using an approach that recognizes and draws on
the strengths of the local community.
The third principle, aligned leadership, is embodied in each of these
case studies. Aligned leadership involves more than directing a program. It
reflects the ability to bridge disciplines, programs, and jurisdictions, as in
the case of Durham’s Just for Us, a partnership among a community health
center, county social and mental health agencies, an academic health center,
and a city housing authority. Aligned leadership also entails the ability to
clarify roles and ensure accountability. Community Care of North Caro-
lina reflects the development of incentives to encourage integration. The
networks created through this partnership are funded by small per capita
payments based on the achievement of improved outcomes and net savings.
Primary care practices receive additional per capita payments to support
their population health activities. Similarly, the public health department in
New York City works with primary care providers to promote cardiovas-
cular health by providing financial incentives. Developing and supporting
appropriate incentives is another aspect of leadership. The final element of
aligned leadership is the capacity to initiate and manage change. In mov-
ing from the status quo to an innovative approach, each of these examples
reflects this element.
Making a commitment to sustainability is the fourth principle. This
commitment to sustainability is illustrated by San Francisco, where re-
OCR for page 71
71
INTEGRATION
sources were pooled, and by Community Care of North Carolina, where
dedicated funding streams ensure that the program will have an enduring
value and an enduring impact.
Finally, integration requires that data and analyses be shared and used
collaboratively. Integration of data has been central to the work in San
Francisco, from linking data sets on high users of multiple services, to
agreeing on uniform hepatitis B quality metrics, to identifying existing
data sources with which to track progress on physical activity and healthy
eating.
While the committee believes that all these principles are ultimately
necessary to integrate and sustain integration efforts, it also believes that
integration can start with any of these principles and that starting is more
important than waiting until all the elements are in place.
HOW THE EXAMPLES AND CASE STUDIES ILLUSTRATE
EFFECTIVE PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH INTEGRATION
The committee’s statement of task included identifying examples for a
number of aspects of effective primary care and public health integration.
Rather than identify a separate programmatic example for each aspect,
however, the committee approached this task by looking for programs that
illustrate multiple aspects. Table 2-3 highlights the examples and case stud-
ies that relate to each aspect identified in the statement of task.
LESSONS LEARNED
The literature review provided many valuable lessons about the state of
primary care and public health integration. First, it highlighted that there
are a wide variety of such activities taking place in communities throughout
the United States. These activities embody many different approaches to
integration, reflecting the needs of the local community, the available local
resources, and the local partners that are willing and able to come together.
This emphasis on local differences means there is no generalizable solution
to integration that the committee can propose. However, the many impres-
sive local efforts can influence action at the federal level.
The importance and difficulty of achieving sustainability is another les-
son. Many of the partnerships described in the literature were short term,
funded by grants and either decreasing in scope or disappearing altogether
when the source of external funding dried up. Embedding integration activi-
ties in existing structures to ensure that they continue after external funding
has stopped is key to sustaining these activities. Sustainability continues to
challenge local partners and has limited the impact of successful primary
care and public health integration efforts in the past.
OCR for page 72
72 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
TABLE 2-3 Aspects of Primary Care and Public Health Integration
Illustrated by the Examples and Case Studies
Aspect Examples
Demonstrated, shared Evident in all of the examples, this aspect is especially
illustrated by the Community Care North Carolina
accountability for population
health improvement networks. These networks are led by local physicians,
public health officials, and other stakeholders who
meet to discuss local health trends and establish
statewide priorities for health. Once established, these
priorities are taken back to the local community,
where local workers determine how the desired result
in a given priority area will be achieved.
The George Washington University School of Public
Optimizing the integration of the
Health and Health Services provides its master of
public health and primary care
workforce public health students with a primary care perspective
through its community-oriented primary care
(COPC) program. As part of the required practicum,
COPC students are expected to work 120 hours in a
community setting that offers health services to gain
experience in integrating public health initiatives and
practices into primary care. To this end, students
have participated in practicum experiences covering
a wide variety of topics, including hospice care,
childhood obesity, community-based rehabilitation,
and medication coverage for the elderly.
The San Francisco Health Improvement Partnerships
Collaborative governance
highlight the effectiveness of collaborative
governance. The Coordinating Council for the
partnerships includes leaders from the primary
care and public health sectors, along with many
community stakeholders. The diversity of participants
in the decision-making process allows for a more
comprehensive evaluation of community health
challenges and innovative solutions.
Embedded in Community Care North Carolina is a
Collaborative financing
collaborative financing structure in which primary
care payments from Medicaid are used in conjunction
with public health funding streams to support joint
community-level activities, including the coordination
of care.
OCR for page 73
73
INTEGRATION
TABLE 2-3 Continued
Aspect Examples
Community Care North Carolina has a focus on
Collaborative care coordination
models the coordination of care and services through its
locally managed networks, drawing on the patient-
centered medical home and chronic care models.
One example is the Just for Us program in Durham,
which highlights coordinated primary care and
care management for older adults and adults with
disabilities in Durham’s public and subsidized housing
facilities and group homes.
The Indiana Network for Patient Care (INPC) is an
Effective use of health
information technology, including example of the effective use of health information
technology. The system collects data from hospitals,
clinics, laboratories, and physicians within the
network and uses these data to populate and maintain
patient records, to notify local and state departments
of public health of laboratory results, and to provide a
wealth of epidemiologic data to researchers and public
health officials.
INPC’s automated notifications system is an example
• eporting of notifiable
R
conditions of the use of health information technology to report
the occurrence of notifiable conditions. This system
has greatly improved surveillance and reporting of
such conditions in Indiana.
New York City provides a valuable example of
• oordination on care
C
and follow-up to improve using health information technology to coordinate
outcomes care and follow-up to improve outcomes. The Panel
Management Program uses prevention outreach
specialists to identify patients at high risk of diabetes,
high cholesterol, hypertension, and smoking by
means of electronic health records and contacts these
patients to encourage positive behaviors such as
filling prescriptions, making and keeping follow-up
appointments, and receiving vaccinations.
continued
OCR for page 74
74 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
TABLE 2-3 Continued
Aspect Examples
The New York City Department of Health and
• rimary care systems
P
Mental Hygiene provides an example of innovative
and public health
departments as data collection and analysis performed within
a public health department. INPC, on the other
potential hubs
hand, illustrates a centralized, stakeholder-governed
data storage and analysis system that operates
independently of primary care and public health
systems. The data are controlled by their providers,
who are members of the primary care and public
health communities; under contract with INPC, they
allow some data to be isolated and aggregated with
data gathered from other members to create a clearer
image of population health. These aggregate data
can be accessed by INPC members at the discretion
of the owners for the purposes of clinical evaluation,
population surveillance, or clinical research.
New York City uses a syndromic sentinel surveillance
• entinel surveillance
S
systems system as an early warning system for disease
outbreaks. This system requires electronic reporting
from emergency departments and ambulance services
within 24 hours for encounters involving certain flu-
like and gastrointestinal symptoms. It also requires
pharmacies to report sales of relevant over-the-counter
and prescription medications to public health officials.
INPC shows excellent progress on the standardization
• rogress on exchanging
P
electronic health record and dissemination of the information collected from
generated information network members. These data are available to provide
comprehensive individual health records to network
physicians and public health officials, as well as
population-based data for epidemiological research.
Related to sustainability is the difficulty of achieving scalability. In-
tegration activities in local communities rarely are able to move beyond
their initial start-up site. There are some exceptions, including SPARC and
the case studies. Overall, however, scalability is a challenge in promoting
integration.
One of the positive lessons is that sharing data and a workforce ap-
pears to be a natural way in which primary care and public health can work
together. In all of the case studies and many of the examples, sharing data
to address community health concerns was foundational for integration
efforts. Similarly, the possibility of sharing staff as a way to bring primary
care and public health together was a frequent theme in the literature.
OCR for page 75
75
INTEGRATION
ROLE OF HRSA AND CDC
The examples and case studies provide some glimpses of HRSA and
CDC involvement: the Community Transformation Grant awarded to San
Francisco; health centers involved in various communities; and HRSA’s
provision of funding to Regenstrief Institute, Indiana State Department of
Health, and the Public Health Informatics Institute to develop guidance
for better management of child health (Grannis et al., 2010). However, the
agencies were not the genesis of the integration; the integration was already
happening at the local level. As mentioned above, the committee believes
there are some ways in which HRSA and CDC could make a greater con-
tribution to these processes.
At a minimum, recognition of the overlapping contributions of the
two agencies would be helpful. Whether it be prenatal care; childhood
immunization campaigns; prevention, tracking, and treatment of sexually
transmitted diseases; cardiovascular disease; or cancer, the work of the
two agencies is bound together at the level of the community. But separate
project requirements, data systems, and administrative structures compli-
cate the coordination of needed services. Coordinated planning between the
agencies would assist communities in linking their programs to serve their
clientele better and more efficiently.
Coordination would assist in reducing the tensions that can exist with
respect to which community agency “owns” an issue or program. Which
agency or group is leading locally depends on local history and relation-
ships. Allowing variation in structure while requiring the achievement of
common goals would permit building on local strengths and successes and
reduce unnecessary tensions.
More broadly, coordination between the agencies could create a space
in which others could participate. Improving population health is a task
requiring both agencies, but is larger than both combined. Private and aca-
demic medical practices, hospitals, schools, social services, mental health
agencies, parks and recreation, and community groups all have perspec-
tives, strengths, and resources to contribute. Several of the examples and
case studies described in this chapter demonstrate the value of an initial
primary care–public health partnership that expands to include others.
Similarly, the coordination of data collection and tracking would assist
local efforts. If health departments and HRSA-supported health centers
were tracking the same data and if these data were available locally, the
data would provide a common understanding of opportunities for the com-
munity and a way in which stakeholders could gauge their performance in
meeting community needs.
Another point that emerges from the literature is the need to develop
the human capital required for integration. Bridging disciplines is not easy
OCR for page 76
76 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
in the best of times and is much more challenging when there are major
stressors and uneven talent and skills. Fundamental shifts are necessary in
the training of both primary care and public health practitioners so they
can work together effectively in meeting the needs of their communities.
The examples and case studies also demonstrate that what is needed is
less support for initial integration, although that is still helpful, and more
the removal of barriers that impede the development and expansion of in-
tegration activities that are already taking place at the local level.
Finally, HRSA and CDC could assist in evaluating local integration ef-
forts. This would help create a more robust evidence base with associated
health and process outcomes. This evidence base, in turn, could illuminate
potential benefits and best practices or methods for integration.
REFERENCES
Bailey, M. B., R. Shiau, J. Zola, S. E. Fernyak, T. Fang, S. K. S. So, and E. T. Chang. 2010.
San Francisco Hep B Free: A grassroots community coalition to prevent hepatitis B and
liver cancer. Journal of Community Health 36(4):538-551.
Barnes-Boyd, C., K. Fordham Norr, and K. W. Nacion. 2001. Promoting infant health through
home visiting by a nurse-managed community worker team. Public Health Nursing
18(4):225-235.
Bender, B. G., P. Dickinson, A. Rankin, F. S. Wamboldt, L. Zittleman, and J. M. Westfall.
2011. The Colorado asthma toolkit program: A practice coaching intervention from the
High Plains Research Network. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
24(3):240-248.
Constance, A., K. Crawford, J. Hare, S. Parker, A. Scott, A. Stys, and G. May-Aldrich.
2002. MDON: A network of community partnerships. Family & Community Health
25(3):52-60.
Cook, J., J. L. Michener, M. Lyn, D. Lobach, and F. Johnson. 2010. Community collaboration
to improve care and reduce health disparities. Health Affairs 29(5):956-958.
Duke Center for Community Research. 2010. Durham health innovations. https://www.dtmi.
duke.edu/about-us/organization/duke-center-for-community-research/durham-health-
innovations (accessed November 15, 2011).
Duke University School of Medicine. 2012. Duke primary care leadership track. http://duke-
med.duke.edu/modules/ooa_myedu/index.php?id=35 (accessed January 23, 2012).
Frieden, T. 2004. Take Care New York: A focused health policy. Journal of Urban Health
81(3):314-316.
Frieden, T. R., M. T. Bassett, L. E. Thorpe, and T. A. Farley. 2008. Public health in New York
City, 2002-2007: Confronting epidemics of the modern era. International Journal of
Epidemiology 37(5):966-977.
Gawande, A. 2011. Hot spotters. The New Yorker, January 24.
George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. No Date. Com-
munity-oriented primary care. http://www.gwu.edu/learn/graduateprofessional/finda
graduateprogram/fulllistofprograms/communityorientedprimarycare (accessed January
23, 2012).
Grannis, S., B. Dixon, and B. Brand. 2010. Leveraging immunization data in the e-health era:
Exploring the value, tradeoffs, and future directions of immunization data exchange.
Indianapolis, IN: Public Health Informatics Institute and Regenstrief Institute.
OCR for page 77
77
INTEGRATION
Heffernan, R., F. Mostahari, D. Das, A. Karpati, M. Kulldorff, and D. Weiss. 2004. Syndromic
surveillance in public health practice. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10(5):858-864.
Katz, M. H., and T. M. Brigham. 2011. Transforming a traditional safety net into a coordi-
nated care system: Lessons from healthy San Francisco. Health Affairs 30(2):237-245.
Kaufman, A., W. Powell, C. Alfero, M. Pacheco, H. Silverblatt, J. Anastasoff, F. Ronquillo, K.
Lucero, E. Corriveau, B. Vanleit, D. Alverson, and A. Scott. 2010. Health extension in
New Mexico: An academic health center and the social determinants of disease. Annals
of Family Medicine 8(1):73-81.
Khalili, M., J. Guy, A. Yu, A. Li, N. Diamond-Smith, S. Stewart, M. Chen, and T. Nguyen.
2010. Hepatitis B and hepatocellular carcinoma screening among Asian Americans: Sur-
vey of safety net healthcare providers. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 56(5):1516-1523.
Larson, K., J. Levy, M. G. Rome, T. D. Matte, L. D. Silver, and T. R. Frieden. 2006. Public
health detailing: A strategy to improve the delivery of clinical preventive services in New
York City. Public Health Reports 121(16640143):228-234.
Lasker, R. D., and the Committee on Medicine and Public Health. 1997. Medicine and public
health: The power of collaboration. New York: The New York Academy of Medicine.
Marcello, R. K., C. Mortezazadeh, C. Chang, and T. Farley. 2011. Take Care New York 2012;
tracking the city’s progress 2009-2010. New York: New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene.
Margolis, P. A., R. Stevens, W. C. Bordley, J. Stuart, C. Harlan, L. Keyes-Elstein, and S.
Wisseh. 2001. From concept to application: The impact of a community-wide interven-
tion to improve the delivery of preventive services to children. Pediatrics 108(11533360):
E42.
Martin-Misener, R., R. Valaitis, and The Strengthening Public Health Care Through Primary
Care and Public Health Collaboration Research Team. 2009. A scoping literature review
of collaboration between primary care and public health: A report to the Canadian
Health Services Research Foundation. Hamilton, ON: StrengthenPHC.
McDonald, C. J., J. M. Overhage, M. Barnes, G. Schadow, L. Blevins, P. R. Dexter, and B.
Mamlin. 2005. The Indiana network for patient care: A working local health information
infrastructure. An example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from
five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries. Health Affairs 24(5):1214-1220.
McLaughlin, C., M. Colby, E. Taylor, M. Harrington, T. Higgins, V. Byrd, and L. Felland. 2011.
Evaluation of Healthy San Francisco. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathematica Policy Research.
Michener, J. L., M. T. Champagne, D. Yaggy, S. D. Yaggy, and K. M. Krause. 2005. Mak-
ing a home in the community for the academic medical center. Academic Medicine
80(15618094):57-61.
Michener, J. L., S. Yaggy, M. Lyn, S. Warburton, M. Champagne, M. Black, M. Cuffe, R.
Califf, C. Gilliss, R. S. Williams, and V. J. Dzau. 2008. Improving the health of the
community: Duke’s experience with community engagement. Academic Medicine 83(4):
408-413.
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 2011. Primary care informa-
tion project. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pcip/panel-management.shtml (accessed
December 2011).
Nurse-Family Partnership. 2011. Public funding: A sound investment that can yield substantial
public and private gains. Denver, CO: Nurse-Family Partnership.
NYC Reach. 2011. NYC Regional Extension Center for Health IT. http://www.nycreach.org/
(accessed December 2011).
Overhage, J. M., S. Grannis, and C. J. McDonald. 2008. A comparison of the completeness
and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting
of notifiable conditions. American Journal of Public Health 98(2):344-350.
OCR for page 78
78 PRIMARY CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Rothemich, S. F., S. H. Woolf, R. E. Johnson, K. J. Devers, S. K. Flores, P. Villars, V. Rabius,
and T. McAfee. 2010. Promoting primary care smoking-cessation support with quitlines:
The QuitLink randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
38(4):367-374.
Schlenker, T. L., R. Baxmann, P. McAvoy, J. Bartkowski, and A. Murphy. 2001. Primary pre-
vention of childhood lead poisoning through community outreach. Wisconsin Medical
Journal 100(8):48-54.
Shenson, D., W. Benson, and A. C. Harris. 2008. Expanding the delivery of clinical preven-
tive services through community collaboration: The SPARC model. Preventing Chronic
Disease 5(1):A20.
Silow-Carroll, S. 2008. Iowa’s 1st Five Initiative: Improving early childhood developmental
services through public-private partnerships. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund) 47:1-15.
Sloane, P. D., J. Bates, M. Gadon, C. Irmiter, and K. Donahue. 2009. Effective clinical partner-
ships between primary care medical practices and public health agencies. Chicago, IL:
American Medical Association.
Steiner, B. D., A. C. Denham, E. Ashkin, W. P. Newton, T. Wroth, and L. A. Dobson, Jr.
2008. Community care of North Carolina: Improving care through community health
networks. Annals of Family Medicine 6(4):361-367.
Tran, C. H., J. McElrath, P. Hughes, K. Ryan, J. Munden, J. B. Castleman, J. Johnson, R.
Doty, D. R. McKay, J. Stringfellow, R. A. Holmes, P. D. Myers, P. A. Small, and J. G.
Morris. 2010. Implementing a community-supported school-based influenza immuniza-
tion program. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science
8(4):331-341.
University of Colorado. 2008. About HPRN. http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/
medicalschool/departments/familymed/research/PBRN/HPRN/Pages/AboutHPRN.aspx
(accessed November 12, 2011).
University of Colorado. 2011. The Anschutz medical campus. http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/
denver/ Pages/AnschutzMedicalCampus.aspx (accessed December 14, 2011).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Estimates of the resident population by race and hispanic origin
for the United States and states: July 1, 2008 (SC-EST2008-04). Washington, DC: U.S.
Census Bureau.
Van Vorst, R. F., R. Araya-Guerra, M. Felzien, D. Fernald, N. Elder, C. Duclos, and J. M.
Westfall. 2007. Rural community members’ perceptions of harm from medical mistakes:
A High Plains Research Network (HPRN) study. The Journal of the American Board of
Family Medicine 20(2):135-143.
Yaggy, S. D., J. L. Michener, D. Yaggy, M. T. Champagne, M. Silberberg, M. Lyn, F. Johnson,
and K. S. H. Yarnall. 2006. Just for Us: An academic medical center-community partner-
ship to maintain the health of a frail low-income senior population. The Gerontologist
46(2):271-276.
