Second, do less harm: The state of states' medical error reporting programs

Statement of the problem and public health significance. Hospitals were designed to be a safe haven and respite from disease and illness. However, a large body of evidence points to preventable errors in hospitals as the eighth leading cause of death among Americans. Twelve percent of Americans, or over 33.8 million people, are hospitalized each year. This population represents a significant portion of at risk citizens exposed to hospital medical errors. Since the number of annual deaths due to hospital medical errors is estimated to exceed 44,000, the magnitude of this tragedy makes it a significant public health problem. ^ Specific aims. The specific aims of this study were threefold. First, this study aimed to analyze the state of the states' mandatory hospital medical error reporting six years after the release of the influential IOM report, "To Err is Human." The second aim was to identify barriers to reporting of medical errors by hospital personnel. The third aim was to identify hospital safety measures implemented to reduce medical errors and enhance patient safety. ^ Methods. A descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective design was used to address the first stated objective. The study data came from the twenty-one states with mandatory hospital reporting programs which report aggregate hospital error data that is accessible to the public by way of states' websites. The data analysis included calculations of expected number of medical errors for each state according to IOM rates. Where possible, a comparison was made between state reported data and the calculated IOM expected number of errors. A literature review was performed to achieve the second study aim, identifying barriers to reporting medical errors. The final aim was accomplished by telephone interviews of principal patient safety/quality officers from five Texas hospitals with more than 700 beds. ^ Results. The state medical error data suggests vast underreporting of hospital medical errors to the states. The telephone interviews suggest that hospitals are working at reducing medical errors and creating safer environments for patients. The literature review suggests the underreporting of medical errors at the state level stems from underreporting of errors at the delivery level. ^

A comparative analysis of CHIP Perinatal policy in twelve states

The purpose of this comparative analysis of CHIP Perinatal policy (42 CFR § 457) was to provide a basis for understanding the variation in policy outputs across the twelve states that, as of June 2007, implemented the Unborn Child rule. This Department of Health and Human Services regulation expanded in 2002 the definition of “child” to include the period from conception to birth, allowing states to consider an unborn child a “targeted low-income child” and therefore eligible for SCHIP coverage. ^ Specific study aims were to (1) describe typologically the structural and contextual features of the twelve states that adopted a CHIP Perinatal policy; (2) describe and differentiate among the various designs of CHIP Perinatal policy implemented in the states; and (3) develop a conceptual model that links the structural and contextual features of the adopting states to differences in the forms the policy assumed, once it was implemented. ^ Secondary data were collected from publicly available information sources to describe characteristics of states’ political system, health system, economic system, sociodemographic context and implemented policy attributes. I posited that socio-demographic differences, political system differences and health system differences would directly account for the observed differences in policy output among the states. ^ Exploratory data analysis techniques, which included median polishing and multidimensional scaling, were employed to identify compelling patterns in the data. Scaled results across model components showed that economic system was most closely related to policy output, followed by health system. Political system and socio-demographic characteristics were shown to be weakly associated with policy output. Goodness-of-fit measures for MDS solutions implemented across states and model components, in one- and two-dimensions, were very good. ^ This comparative policy analysis of twelve states that adopted and implemented HHS Regulation 42 C.F.R. § 457 contributes to existing knowledge in three areas: CHIP Perinatal policy, public health policy and policy sciences. First, the framework allows for the identification of CHIP Perinatal program design possibilities and provides a basis for future studies that evaluate policy impact or performance. Second, studies of policy determinants are not well represented in the health policy literature. Thus, this study contributes to the development of the literature in public health policy. Finally, the conceptual framework for policy determinants developed in this study suggests new ways for policy makers and practitioners to frame policy arguments, encouraging policy change or reform. ^

What's Working in Family-Based Services--or, What's Left to Believe in During a Time of Such Doubt?

This article is a qualitative, personal report from the field, designed to highlight current developments in family-based theory and practice that bring hopefulness to workers and clients. The author, an experienced human services consultant and family therapist, draws from his recent experience in a number of states to identify exemplars of practice in the following areas: integrative theory building, functional family assessment, systems change in regard to inter-agency coordination and foster care, community building in low income neighborhoods, developing humility as helpers, and addressing issues of hope and spirituality with clients and with co-workers. Given the turbulent and hostile political environment for family-based services, this article challenges us to remember that effectiveness in helping others is directly related to our feelings of hopefulness about ourselves and our world.

Lessons for emerging state Children's Health Insurance Premium Assistance programs: Case study of the Massachusetts Masshealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP)

Providing health insurance coverage for vulnerable populations such as low-income high-risk children with limited access to health care is a challenge for many states. Over the past decade, higher private insurance premiums and unpredictable labor markets have increased the number of uninsured and underinsured children nationwide. Due to recent economic downfalls, many states such as Texas, have expressed interest in using premium assistance programs to increase enrollment of low income children and families in private coverage through employer sponsored health insurance. Massachusetts has been especially successful in reducing the number of uninsured children through the implementation of MassHealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP), an employer based premium assistance program. The purpose of this study is to identify key implementation factors of a fully established premium assistance program which may provide lessons and facilitate implementation of emerging premium assistance programs. ^ The case study of the fully established MassHealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP) has illustrated the ability of states to expand their Medicaid and SCHIP programs in order to provide affordable health coverage to uninsured and underinsured low income children and their families. As demonstrated by MHFAP, the success of a premium assistance program depends on four key factors: (1) determination of participant and employer eligibility; (2) determination of employer benefits meeting benchmark equivalency (Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program); (3) the use of appropriate marketing and outreach strategies; and (4) establishment of adequate monitoring and reporting techniques. Successful implementation strategies, revealed by the case study of the Massachusetts MassHealth Family Assistance Program, may be used by emerging premium assistance programs, such as Texas Children's Health Insurance Premium Assistance Program (CHIP-PA) toward establishment of an effective, efficient, and equitable employer sponsored health program.^

The response of Texas public health agencies and workers to the emergency preparedness initiatives after 9/11

The purpose of this research was to better understand the impact of the terrorist attacks in 2001 on public health, particularly for Texas public health. This study employed mixed methods to examine changes to public health culture within Texas local public health agencies, important attitudes of public health workers toward responding to a disaster, and the funding policies that might ensure our investment in public health emergency preparedness is protected. ^ A qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with a large sample of public health officials in Texas found that all the constituent parts of a peculiar culture for public health preparedness existed that spanned the state's local health departments regardless of size, or funding level. The new preparedness culture in Texas had the hallmarks necessary for a robust public health preparedness and emergency response system. ^ The willingness of public health workers, necessary to make these kinds of changes and mount a disaster response was examined in one of Texas' most experienced disaster response teams—the public health workers for the City of Houston. A hypothesized latent variable model showed that willingness mediated all other factors in the model (self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, and risk perception) for self-reported likelihood of reporting to work for a disaster. The RMSEA for the final model was 0.042 with a confidence interval of 0.036—0.049 and the chi-squared difference test was P=0.08, indicating a well-fitted model that suggests willingness is an important factor for consideration by preparedness planners and researchers alike. ^ Finally, with disasters on the rise and federal funding for preparedness dwindling, a review of states' policies for the distribution of these funds and their advantages and disadvantages were examined through a review of current literature and public documents, and a survey of state-level public health officials, emergency management professionals and researchers. Although the base plus per-capita method is the most common, it is not necessarily perceived to be the most effective. No clear "optimal" method emerged from the study, but recommendations for a strategic combination of three methods were made that has the potential to maximize the benefits of each method, while minimizing the weaknesses.^