Office of the Chief
of Public Health Practice (OCPHP) |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Overview of Key Changes to "Version 2" Instruments
- Modernized and updated the content – CDC and
its partners worked with subject matter experts
and key organizations on the content covered
in the NPHPSP to determine what needs to be
updated or modernized. Expert input was solicited
in areas such as preparedness, informatics,
health marketing, partnerships, workforce, public
health law, and laboratory issues.
- Included
new “discussion boxes” and deleted long lists
of subquestions – the instruments now include
non-scored "discussion boxes" at key points,
such as in locations where there previously
had been a series of listed points at the lower
subquestion level. This helps the instrument
retain enough specificity to adequately measure
performance, but at the same time provide a
format change that may prompt more fruitful
discussion by users. The discussion boxes can
be used as checkboxes or prompting points to
inform the response on the question above and
identify areas for improvement.
- Revised the
response option labels and added a fifth response
option to capture “Absolute No” responses –
the original instruments included 4 response
options - yes, high partial, low partial and
no. The “no” response reflected that between
0 – 25% of the activity was being done. Based
on user input and to better address the need
to separate those without any activity at all
and those performing at a minimal level, we
have added a “no activity” (or 0%) response
option as well as a new option to represent
"minimal activity" (greater than zero but no
more than 25%). We also revised the response
labels to provide more intuitive wording: no
activity, minimal, moderate, significant, and
optimal activity.
-
Moved the question about
the contribution of the agency into a separate
optional questionnaire – as recommended by work
group members and field test sites, the agency
contribution question is best answered separately
from the questions about overall system performance.
This is now in a separate and optional questionnaire.
Those that complete this questionnaire receive
an additional module to their reports.
- Added
an optional priority questionnaire – sites are
provided with a supplemental and optional questionnaire
that asks about the "priority" of addressing
each model standard. Those that complete these
questions get an additional component to their
reports which display their performance scores
in relation to how they have prioritized standards.
This new component is intended to strengthen
and better catalyze the performance improvement
activities that should occur as a result of
the assessment process.
- Streamlined – the
three instruments are shorter as a result of
decreasing the amount of subquestions (by placing
many into discussion boxes) and seeking opportunities
for streamlining or deleting unnecessary content.
|
 |
|
|