The Establishment of the School of Public Health at the State University of New York,Downstate Medical Center: The First Nationally Accredited School of Public Health in a Public University in New York City

The State University of New York (SUNY), Downstate Medical Center initiated a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree program in July 2001 following planning efforts that began in 1995. Twelve students entered the program in June 2002, and currently some 110 MPH students and 12 Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) students are enrolled. This article describes the long and complex process of transforming the original MPH degree program, with its single focus on urban and immigrant health, with a student enrollment of 12 and 8 full-time faculty, into a school of public health with a large student enrollment of 122 students, 25 full-time faculty, five MPH degree tracks, and four DrPH degree tracks. The process of establishing the SUNY Downstate School of Public Health in 2009 from its inception as an MPH program in 2001 spanned a period of 8 years. This process was guided by a commitment to two basic principles. The first was to maintain the original 2005 program accreditation by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH). The second was to sequentially secure accreditation for all subsequent four MPH and four DrPH degree tracks through CEPH’s procedure of substantive change approval. This policy assured continuous national CEPH accreditation of the original Urban and Immigrant Health MPH degree track and all added degree programs. The 5-year period following the initial CEPH accreditation of the MPH program in 2005 was one of intense development during which all of the essential elements for CEPH accreditation of a school of public health were put into place. This rapid development was made possible by the vision and full support of Downstate’s president, John C. LaRosa, MD, FACP, and the dedicated efforts of many. This included the students, faculty, staff, and administrators of the School of Public Health, the school’s Community Advisory Group, several external advisors, and many in the medical center’s Central Administration, College of Medicine, School of Graduate Studies, College of Nursing, College of Health Related Professions, and the University Hospital of Brooklyn. From the very beginning of the planning phase for an MPH program and through the ultimate accreditation of the School of Public Health in 2010, broad participation was solicited from all major units in the medical center. Thus, the MPH program became a center-wide initiative and not merely that of the College of Medicine’s Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health. This broad participation has been continuously maintained through the involvement of leaders of other medical center academic units and the University Hospital of Brooklyn in the program’s and then the school’s standing and ad hoc committees, and in other activities as well. Similarly, community representation has been maintained, some through formal linkages relevant to the practical field experiences required of all students. In October 2010, the Board of Councilors of CEPH accredited the SUNY Downstate School of Public Health for a 5-year period through 31 December 2015. The accreditation of the school was a major milestone for Downstate, Brooklyn, and New York City. The SUNY Downstate School of Public Health is the first CEPH accredited school of public health in the history of Brooklyn, and only the second such school in New York City. It is also the first CEPH accredited school of public health at a publicly supported university in New York City. The school has already had a major impact on improving the health and well-being of the people of Brooklyn through its numerous collaborative community-based health promotion and disease prevention programs.     

Developing the academic institution's role in response to bioterrorism: the Iowa Center for Public Health Preparedness.

The terrorist acts during the fall of 2001 triggered renewed concern about the capacity of the nation's public health system to deal with crisis. A critical element of the response ability of the public health system is a prepared workforce. Based on a pre-existing concern about emerging infectious disease, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), working with the Association of Schools of Public Health, had established a network of university-based Centers for Public Health Preparedness. The events of September 11 accelerated, expanded, and focused this effort. This article discusses this national program, details the activities of the based Center for Public Health Preparedness located at the University of Iowa, and suggests preparedness issues deserving future development.     

Poison Center Data for Public Health Surveillance: Poison Center and Public Health Perspectives

Objective

To describe the use of poison center data for public health surveillance from the poison center, local, state, and federal public health perspectives and to generate meaningful discussion on how to address the challenges to collaboration.

Introduction

Since 2008, poisoning has become the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States (US); since 1980, the poisoning-related fatality rate in the US has almost tripled.1 Many poison-related injuries and deaths are reported to regional poison centers (PCs) which receive about 2.4 million reports of human chemical and poison exposures annually.2 Federal, state, and local public health (PH) agencies often collaborate with poison centers and use PC data for public health surveillance of poisoning-related health issues. Many state and local PH agencies have partnerships with regional PCs for direct access to local PC data which help them perform this function. At the national level, CDC conducts public health surveillance for exposures and illnesses of public health significance using the National Poison Data System (NPDS), the national PC reporting database.Though most PC and PH officials agree that PC data play an important role in PH practice and surveillance, collaboration between PH agencies and PCs has been hindered by numerous challenges. To address these challenges and bolster collaboration, the Poison Center and Public Health Collaborations Community of Practice (CoP) was created in 2010 by CDC as a means to share experiences, identify best practices, and facilitate relationships among federal, state and local public health agencies and PCs. To date, the Poison Center and Public Health Collaborations CoP includes over 200 members from state and local public health, regional PCs, CDC, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A leadership team was created with representatives of the many stakeholders of the community to drive its direction and oversee activities.

Methods

The panel will consist of 4 presenters and 1 moderator, who are members of the Poison Center and Public Health Collaborations CoP leadership team. Each presenter will bring a unique perspective of the use of PC data for PH practice and surveillance: CDC, state department of health, a local department of health, and a PC. Royal Law from the CDC National Center for Environmental Health will present on using PC data for identification of exposures and illnesses of public health significance identified from NPDS data collected from all 57 PCs. Dr. Jay Schauben from the Florida/USVI Poison Information Center - Jacksonville will discuss PC participation in surveillance and use of PC data for tracking and mitigation of PH events in Florida. Dr. Prakash Mulay from the Florida Department of Health will discuss utilization of PC data to enhance ESSENCE-based chemical-associated exposure and illness surveillance in Florida. Katherine Wheeler from the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene will discuss NYC’s use of PC data in surveillance of potential emerging issues, from energy drinks to synthetic marijuana. Each presenter will discuss the use of PC data for PH practice and surveillance in his or her organization and jurisdiction, the successes of using PC data, and their challenges.

Results

The moderator will engage the audience by facilitating discussion of the successes and challenges to using PC data for PH practice and surveillance with the audience.Sample questions:What are your current capacities and collaborative activities between your state/local health department and your poison center?What non-funding related barriers hinder the collaboration between your state/local health department and poison center?If more funding were available, how would you use this funding to increase the level of interactivity with the poison center and state/local health department?     

Teaching evaluation of the Master of Health Policy and Management program at the Centre School of Public Health, School of Medicine, Belgrade University

Background

Evaluation is a systematic process that facilitates measurement of the extent to which a student has attained the educational objective.

Objectives

The article objectives were to describe the teaching evaluation approach of the Master of Health Policy and Management program developed at Centre School of Public Health, the School of Medicine, Belgrade University.

Methods

The evaluation strategy for the Master of Health Policy and Management program (which has not been completed yet) for four obligatory courses involves two simple components: evaluation of student performance and student evaluation of the teaching process. The teaching evaluation was based on a questionnaire with a total of 11 questions. External evaluation was conducted by an individual expert who visited one course.

Results

The average final score for four courses was very high, somewhat higher than 86 points (of a maximum of 100) with a standard deviation of 9.76 points. However, the average final score per course differed significantly (F?=?6.46, p?=?0.001). Overall the average student's rating by questionnaire of all courses was 4.38 (of a maximum of 5), whereas the average marks for assessment of the specific characteristics of the course ranged from 3.65 (understandable teaching material and handouts) to 4.68 (the level of preparation by lecturers/instructors). Specific courses differed significantly in the overall rating (F?=?10.81, p?=?0.000).

Conclusion

The average rating of teachers and instructors was high, as was the average final score of students. However, students rated teaching slightly better than teachers evaluated their knowledge and skills.     

Public Health Emergency Preparedness at the Local Level: Results of a National Survey

Objective. To study the relationship between elements of public health infrastructure and local public health emergency preparedness (PHEP).
Data Sources/Study Setting. National Association of County and City Health Officials 2005 National Profile of Local Health Departments (LHDs).
Study Design. Cross-sectional.
Principal Findings. LHDs serving larger populations are more likely to have staff, capacities, and activities in place for an emergency. Adjusting for population size, the presence of a local board of health and the LHDs' experience in organizing PHEP coalitions were associated with better outcomes.
Conclusions. The results of this study suggest that more research should be conducted to investigate the benefit of merging small health departments into coalitions to overcome the inverse relationship between preparedness and population size of the jurisdiction served by the LHD.     

Building partnerships towards strengthening Makerere University College of Health Sciences: a stakeholder and sustainability analysis

Background

Partnerships and networking are important for an institution of higher learning like Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) to be competitive and sustainable.

Methods

A stakeholder and sustainability analysis of 25 key informant interviews was conducted among past, current and potential stakeholders of MakCHS to obtain their perspectives and contributions to sustainability of the College in its role to improve health outcomes.

Results

The College has multiple internal and external stakeholders. Stakeholders from Uganda wanted the College to use its enormous academic capacity to fulfil its vision, take initiative, and be innovative in conducting more research and training relevant to the country’s health needs. Many stakeholders felt that the initiative for collaboration currently came more from the stakeholders than the College. External stakeholders felt that MakCHS was insufficiently marketing itself and not directly engaging the private sector or Parliament. Stakeholders also identified the opportunity for MakCHS to embrace information technology in research, learning and training, and many also wanted MakCHS to start leadership and management training programmes in health systems. The need for MakCHS to be more vigorous in training to enhance professionalism and ethical conduct was also identified.

Discussion

As a constituent of a public university, MakCHS has relied on public funding, which has been inadequate to fulfill its mission. Broader networking, marketing to mobilize resources, and providing strong leadership and management support to inspire confidence among its current and potential stakeholders will be essential to MakCHS’ further growth. MakCHS’ relevance is hinged on generating research knowledge for solving the country’s contemporary health problems and starting relevant programs and embracing technologies. It should share new knowledge widely through publications and other forms of dissemination. Whether institutional leadership is best in the hands of academicians or professional managers is a debatable matter.

Conclusions

This study points towards the need for MakCHS and other African public universities to build a broad network of partnerships to strengthen their operations, relevance, and sustainability. Conducting stakeholder and sustainability analyses are instructive toward this end, and have provided information and perspectives on how to make long-range informed choices for success.

     

Management education at the Nordic School of Public Health

This article introduces the Program of Health Services Management at the Nordic School of Public Health in Gothenburg, Sweden, after its reorganization in 1987. The school is a joint effort of the governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden. As background, some research on the effects of management training for physicians and on the significance of leadership is presented. This article focuses on the relationship between administration, management, and leadership. The program aims at a holistic approach. The appendix presents the main purposes and content of the program.