NPHPSP2 - Improving Performance: Resources for NPHPSP Users...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Issue Focus: Priority Setting March 2006 Improving Performance: Resources for NPHPSP Users Choosing A Priority Setting Method* Without priorities and a common focus, it is virtually impossible for a partnership to achieve results. After receiving scores on the National Public Health Performance Standards, most users report that there are more areas that need improvement than they can tackle at once. Setting priorities for improvement is essential, but it also a challenge . Sites may find that some standards are high priorities for improvement, even if they score higher than other areas. For example, a local public health system may receive a score of 56% on Plan for Public Health Emergencies and a score of 25% on Fostering Innovation. System partners may decide emergency response planning is a higher priority for the improvement team, even though it received a higher score. Listed below are several options for priority setting methods that can help narrow the focus of improvement efforts related to the NPHPSP, preparedness, or other public health programs. Use discussion and consensus. The goal of this method is to reach agreement through discussion, rather than through a formal voting or rating process. Rate the importance and performance of Essential Services or indicators. Although this method has several variations, its purpose is to inform decisions by showing how each Essential Service or indicator ranks in order of importance. 1. Rate the importance of areas (at the Essential Service or indicator level) on 1-10 scale using individual voting sheets, group consensus, or an online survey such as one used in Illinois for its state public health system assessment. ± "On a scale of 1 to 10, what is the importance of this model standard to our public health system?" (ranks importance without regard to scores; may be asked before the assessment) ± "On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to improve our performance in this activity (e.g., through a quality improvement process, increased emphasis or resources)?" (ranks importance after seeing scores; focuses on the importance of improvement)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
After each Essential Service or indicator is rated, display them in rank order and consider the appropriateness of the match between importance ratings and current performance scores. Final results may be displayed in a list or visually in the four categories described below. 2. As a second step, assign indicators into one of four categories based on their high or low importance and performance. The goal of this method is not to rank indicators, but to cluster them into groups that are useful for action plans. As shown in the NPHPSP Users’ Guide
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/17/2012 for the course GCIS 603 taught by Professor Sasi during the Spring '10 term at Gannon.

Page1 / 5

NPHPSP2 - Improving Performance: Resources for NPHPSP Users...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online