Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Recorded presentation

Ruth Wetta-Hall, RN, PhD, MPH, MS, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, 1010 N. Kansas Avenue, Wichita, KS 67214, Mary Beth Herrmann, RN, BS, Director, Pawnee County Health Department, 715 Broadway, Larned, KS 67550, (620) 285-6963, marybeth@pawnee.kscoxmail.com, and Susan Kang, JD, Policy Director, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Curtis State Office Building, Suite 130, 1000 SW Jackson Street, Topeka, KS 66612.

Purpose: To assess the impact of regionalization of Kansas counties associated with bioterrorism (BT) preparedness since 2002 through the eyes of local health departments (LHDs).

Methods: Three, two-hour focus groups were conducted with 31 health department employees involved in BT preparedness in May 2005. Participants were predominantly female, aged 40 years or older, and were employed as public health administrators.

Results: Regionalization was perceived as “absolutely necessary” to make the state emergency management translate to local emergency preparedness management. Participants agreed that BT regionalization improved the delivery and availability of public health services, increased the efficiency and timeliness of LHDs' functioning and enhanced public health's visibility in emergency preparedness efforts. Collaboration brought additional resources to regions including personnel, knowledge resources, technology and traditional fiscal resources. Moreover, the process supported the development of relationships, trust and mutual respect among LHDs and with other governmental agencies.

Disadvantages associated with BT regionalization were 1) lack of funding and time for collaborative work, 2) frustration with changing BT guidelines and rewriting plans and 3) differences between state expectations and local realities. In addition, four issues were identified as necessary to sustain BT regions including: 1) continued funding, 2) documented benefit from participation, 3) commitment from LHDs and their communities, and 4) engagement and education of local elected officials about benefits of regionalization.

Conclusions: The regionalization process was beneficial and produced both tangible and intangible benefits; however, barriers to regionalization expansion will need to be addressed for additional collaborative ventures to occur.

Learning Objectives:

• 1.Recognize the value of qualitative research methods in collaborative ventures.
• 2.Discuss tangible and intangible benefits of regionalization.
• 3.Articulate the benefit of collaborative partnerships among local health departments.

Keywords: Bioterrorism, Community Health Planning

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No

Recorded presentation