Future pandemic influenza control (FPIC) related strategic management plan based on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza review of health policy decisions, their practice and implications

This cross-sectional study is based on the qualitative and quantitative research design to review health policy decisions, their practice and implications during 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States and globally. The “Future Pandemic Influenza Control (FPIC) related Strategic Management Plan” was developed based on the incorporation of the “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (2005)” for the United States from the U.S. Homeland Security Council and “The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (2006)” from the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Committee for use by the public health agencies in the United States as well as globally. The “global influenza experts’ survey” was primarily designed and administered via email through the “Survey Monkey” system to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic experts as the study respondents. The effectiveness of this plan was confirmed and the approach of the study questionnaire was validated to be convenient and the excellent quality of the questions provided an efficient opportunity to the study respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of predefined strategies/interventions for future pandemic influenza control.^ The quantitative analysis of the responses to the Likert-scale based questions in the survey about predefined strategies/interventions, addressing five strategic issues to control future pandemic influenza. The effectiveness of strategies defined as pertinent interventions in this plan was evaluated by targeting five strategic issues regarding pandemic influenza control. For the first strategic issue pertaining influenza prevention and pre pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for strategy (1a) 87.5%, strategy (1b) 91.7% and strategy (1c) 83.3%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (1); (1b (High Priority) > 1a (Medium Priority) > 1c (Low Priority) based on the available resources of the developing and developed countries. For the second Strategic Issue encompassing the preparedness and communication regarding pandemic influenza control; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (2a) 95.6%, strategy (2b) 82.6%, strategy (2c) 91.3% and Strategy (2d) 87.0%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (2); (2a (highest priority) > 2c (high priority) >2d (medium priority) > 2b (low priority). For the third strategic issue encompassing the surveillance and detection of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (3a) 90.9% and strategy (3b) 77.3%. The assessment of the priority level for theses strategies to address the strategic Issue No. (3) (3a (high priority) > 3b (medium/low priority). For the fourth strategic issue pertaining the response and containment of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (4a) 63.6%, strategy (4b) 81.8%, strategy (4c) 86.3%, and strategy (4d) 86.4%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (4); (4d (highest priority) > 4c (high priority) > 4b (medium priority) > 4a (low priority). The fifth strategic issue about recovery from influenza and post pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (5a) 68.2%, strategy (5b) 36.3% and strategy (5c) 40.9%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (5); (5a (high priority) > 5c (medium priority) > 5b (low priority).^ The qualitative analysis of responses to the open-ended questions in the study questionnaire was performed by means of thematic content analysis. The following recurrent or common “themes” were determined for the future implementation of various predefined strategies to address five strategic issues from the “FPIC related Strategic Management Plan” to control future influenza pandemics. (1) Pre Pandemic Influenza Prevention, (2) Seasonal Influenza Control, (3) Cost Effectiveness of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI), (4) Raising Global Public Awareness, (5) Global Influenza Vaccination Campaigns, (6)Priority for High Risk Population, (7) Prompt Accessibility and Distribution of Influenza Vaccines and Antiviral Drugs, (8) The Vital Role of Private Sector, (9) School Based Influenza Containment, (10) Efficient Global Risk Communication, (11) Global Research Collaboration, (12) The Critical Role of Global Public Health Organizations, (13) Global Syndromic Surveillance and Surge Capacity and (14) Post Pandemic Recovery and Lessons Learned. The future implementation of these strategies with confirmed effectiveness to primarily “reduce the overall response time’ in the process of ‘early detection’, ‘strategies (interventions) formulation’ and their ‘implementation’ to eventually ensure the following health outcomes: (a) reduced influenza transmission, (b) prompt and effective influenza treatment and control, (c) reduced influenza related morbidity and mortality.^

For-profit business safety interventions: A systematic, descriptive review of the literature

The purpose of this research was to determine if principles from organizational theory could be used as a framework to compare and contrast safety interventions developed by for-profit industry for the time period 1986–1996. A literature search of electronic databases and manual search of journals and local university libraries' book stacks was conducted for safety interventions developed by for-profit businesses. To maintain a constant regulatory environment, the business sectors of nuclear power, aviation and non-profits were excluded. Safety intervention evaluations were screened for scientific merit. Leavitt's model from organization theory was updated to include safety climate and renamed the Updated Leavitt's Model. In all, 8000 safety citations were retrieved, 525 met the inclusion criteria, 255 met the organizational safety intervention criteria, and 50 met the scientific merit criteria. Most came from non-public health journals. These 50 were categorized by the Updated Leavitt's Model according to where within the organizational structure the intervention took place. Evidence tables were constructed for descriptive comparison. The interventions clustered in the areas of social structure, safety climate, the interaction between social structure and participants, and the interaction between technology and participants. No interventions were found in the interactions between social structure and technology, goals and technology, or participants and goals. Despite the scientific merit criteria, many still had significant study design weaknesses. Five interventions tested for statistical significance but none of the interventions commented on the power of their study. Empiric studies based on safety climate theorems had the most rigorous designs. There was an attempt in these studies to address randomization amongst subjects to avoid bias. This work highlights the utility of using the Updated Leavitt's Model, a model from organizational theory, as a framework when comparing safety interventions. This work also highlights the need for better study design of future trials of safety interventions. ^

Financial performance drivers and strategic control: The case of cancer treatment centers

Strategic control is defined as the use of qualitative and quantitative tools for the evaluation of strategic organizational performance. Most research in strategic planning has focused on strategy formulation and implementation, but little work has been done on strategic performance evaluation particularly in the area of cancer research. The objective of this study was to identify strategic control approaches and financial performance metrics used by major cancer centers in the country as an initial step in expanding the theory and practice behind strategic organizational performance. Focusing on hospitals which share similar mandate and resource constraints was expected to improve measurement precision. The results indicate that most cancer centers use a wide selection of evaluation tools, but sophisticated analytical approaches were less common. In addition, there was evidence that high-performing centers tend to invest a larger degree of resources in the area of strategic performance analysis than centers showing lower financial results. The conclusions point to the need for incorporating higher degree of analytical power in order to improve the tracking of strategic performance. This study is one of the first to concentrate in the area of strategic control.^