Table 1 Comparison of Five Cases
| Â | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implementing agency type | Local health department | Teaching health system | Local health department | Community-based organization | Teaching health system |
Location and area(s) served | Western United States, rural/agricultural surrounding areas | South Central United States, urban/sub-urban | Southeastern United States, urban/sub-urban | Northeastern United States, statewide, urban/sub-urban | Mid-Atlantic United States, urban/sub-urban/rural-agricultural surrounding areas |
Reason for selection | Strong coordination and integration with women’s care | Strong integration with women’s and pediatric care | Strong coordination with WIC and child welfare; Integration with women’s care | Strong coordination with substance use treatment and child welfare | Strong coordination with substance use treatment; Integration with women’s and pediatric care |
Year began NFP implementation | 2001 | 2008 | 2012 | 2009 | 2001 |
Funded capacity and source(s) | 150 clients from state funding | 200 clients from federal Medicaid block grant | 120 clients from local non-profit children’s council | 200 clients from the federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program | 290 clients from blended state funding |
Organizational and team structure | Under clinical and community health division with 1 nurse supervisor, 1 administrator, 6 nurse home visitors (NHV) | Under the women’s service line with 1 nurse supervisor, 1 administrator, 8 NHVs, and 1 data entry clerk | Under maternal child health division with 1 nurse supervisor, 1 administrator, 6 NHVs, 1 records technician, 1 contracted mental health counselor | Under home visitation division with 1 nurse supervisor, 1 nurse manager, 6 NHVs (2 bilingual) | Under the women’s and pediatric service line with 2 NFP teams: 2 nurse supervisors, 1 administrator, 12 NHVs, 1 administrative assistant |
Relational facilitators | Leadership support Community buy-in Program champions and reliable referrals Shared mission, goals and approach to care Interpersonal relationships Strong nurse supervisor Shared client population | Leadership support Program champions and reliable referrals Shared mission and goals Shared client population | Leadership support Shared mission and goals | Leadership support Community buy-in Shared mission, goals, and approach to care Shared client population | Leadership support Program champions and reliable referrals Shared mission and goals Interpersonal relationships Common administrator for multiple programs Shared client population |
Structural facilitators | Co-location and close proximity Written agreements Full access to shared electronic medical records (EMR) system | Badge access Common internal policies View-only access to shared EMR (full-access for nurse supervisor) | Co-location Written agreements Full access to shared EMR system Access to state data systems (child welfare) Funding sustainability | Co-location and close proximity Common internal policies Internal EMR system Centralization of programs/services State oversight | Co-location and badge access Common internal policies Full access to shared EMR |
Community Advisory Board (CAB) functioning | Strong engagement from diverse sectors Meetings facilitate ongoing communication | Statewide CAB supports multiple home visitation programs Meetings facilitate referrals process and systems coordination | Strong leadership and funder participation Limited team involvement and cross-sector representation | Single CAB supports multiple NFP programs in the same community Diverse representation from across sectors | Strong healthcare representation Limited community engagement |