Defining the Role of a State Healthcare Associated Infection Program: A Systematic Approach

Monday, June 20, 2016: 2:05 PM
Tikahtnu A, Dena'ina Convention Center
Anna Rose Frick , Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage, AK
Kimberly M Spink , Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage, AK
Michael P Cooper , Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage, AK
Louisa J Castrodale , Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage, AK
Joseph B McLaughlin , Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Anchorage, AK
BACKGROUND: State health department healthcare associated infection (HAI) programs face a challenge in identifying their unique contribution to community HAI prevention efforts because numerous groups have a role in HAI prevention, and establishing the roles and capabilities of diverse partners is challenging.  In light of these challenges, along with new federal grant requirements and activities related to Ebola-response, a comprehensive review and assessment of Alaska’s  HAI Program was undertaken. A contractor was hired to review and update the state’s HAI Program plan.  

METHODS:  Because of the complexity of the HAI environment, a structured, multi-faceted  approach to plan development was used.  This approach utilized different techniques for three distinct groups involved in HAI work in the state.  First, the Division of Public Health and Section of Epidemiology leadership engaged in a structured brainstorming session to elicit their vision for the program based on their strengths and goals. Next, the Delphi technique, a consensus-generating process, was used to elicit the state’s HAI Adivisory Council’s priorities. Finally, infection preventionists throughout the state were surveyed to assess their needs. Data from these three activities were integrated to develop an updated plan.

RESULTS:  This process took approximately four months, with participants spending an estimated 1-5 hours on their respective activities. The response rate among Advisory Council members and infection prevenionists were approximately 50% and 24%, respectively. Participants noted that important dialogue about the purpose and goals of the program was initiated by this process. Significant differences in vision for the program within health department leadership were observed. Issues with the regulations governing NHSN access for the program were identified within the Advisory Council. A need for better coordination between involved organizations was also identified.

CONCLUSIONS:  This multifaceted process is an effective and efficient tool for developing a program plan. It formally engaged partner organizations outside of the state in a systematic manner, encouraging collaboration and coordination. Including all partners in the state program planning process was found to be helpful. Having an outside party facilitate plan development provided useful perspective and focused work into a discrete time period. One key limitation of this process is that it requires active participation from several groups, which proved challenging. This process could be used effectively in non-HAI settings, and could be helpful in areas where diverse organizations are part of prevention efforts.