Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12DATA POINTS: A Health Department Roadmap for Enhancing Data to Care Programs 6 As part of NASTAD’s initial Commu- nity of Practice (CoP) webinar series in 2015, NASTAD conducted an assessment of the current D2C work participating health departments were implementing in their juris- dictions. The assessment gathered information about D2C models, data use, collaboration, implementation stage, and technical assistance needs from 28 state and territorial health departments. Assessment findings were intended to shape the topics discussed in the initial Community of Practice webinar series facilitated by NASTAD. Please note that the assess- ment summary only includes health departments that participated in the NASTAD CoP webinars and may not be representative of all health depart- ments in the U.S. Additionally, many health departments were in the initial stages of building their D2C programs, so their D2C models and implemen- tation stages may have changed since the assessment data was collected. Of the 28 total assessment respon- dents, 19 health departments were currently engaged in D2C activities. The majority of these jurisdictions were implementing a “combination” model of D2C (53%), utilizing both provider and health department-led linkage and re-engagement outreach. The other dominant model was the health department model (37%). NASTAD 2015 D2C Assessment DtC Models Implemented by Participan ts (n=19) Combination Health Department/ Health Car e Provider Model 53% Health Care Provider Model 5% Health Department Model 37% [CATEGORY NAME ] [PRECENTAGE] Participants also indicated which steps in D2C planning and implementa- tion they needed additional technical assistance. The top five technical assistance needs at the beginning of the CoP webinars were: Among all health departments who completed the assessment, 100% had active collaboration between their prevention and surveillance programs, and 93% had active collaboration between surveillance and care. When asked to rate the level of collabora- tion with their prevention, care, and surveillance programs on a four-point scale from “needs improvement” to “superior,” health departments on average reported a collaboration level of 2.8/4. At the beginning of the CoP, several states had already developed resources for their D2C programs during planning or implementation including: data sharing agreements (36%), protocols (32%), local match- ing programs and algorithms (29%), and workflows (25%). AL AR GA ID IL IN KY MO MT NV NH OH SC SD TX VA WY OK ME MD NJ NY OR AK CO LA UT CA KS MS FL HI NM AZ ND MN IA WI MI NE WA PA NC TN WV VT MA RI DE CT Community of Prac/ce par/cipant Community of Prac/ce par/cipant implemen/ng D2C U.S. Virgin Islands Puerto Rico Community of Prac/ce presenter Community of Prac/ce presenter and assessment par/cipant OtherModel 5% TheprimarysourceoftheinformationonPLWHwhoare notincareisthehealthdepartment’spopulation-based HIVsurveillanceregistry.Thisdatabasecontainscase reportsonallpersonsdiagnosedwithHIVwhowere living/receivingcareinthehealthdepartmentjurisdiction atthetimeofdiagnosis.Thisdatabasealsocontainsthe laboratorytestresultsthatareroutinelyconductedduring theprovisionofHIVmedicalcare—CD4countsandHIV viralloadlevels.Ifsomeonewhohasbeendiagnosed withHIVandreporteddoesnothavefollow-uplaboratory resultsinthesurveillancedatabasetherearefourprimary reasonswhy: Theperson: 1. hasmovedoutsideofthehealthdepartment jurisdiction. 2. hasdied. 3. isgettingHIVmedicalcare,butthelaboratory resultsarenotreported. 4. isnotincare. Beforeproducinganotincare(NIC)list,itisimportant tohavequalitydatasothatthereareasfewpeopleas possiblethatappeartobenotincarethatareactuallyin careormovedoutsideofthejurisdictionoraredeceased. Ifahealthdepartmentmeetsthecriteriainthebullets above,theywillminimizethosereasonsandmaximize thosewhoappearontheNIClistbecausetheyaretruly notincare.