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.^

Academic medical centers: A framework for strategic repositioning

This study sought to understand the elements affecting the success or failure of strategic repositioning efforts by academic medical centers (AMC). The research question was: What specific elements in the process appear to be most important in determining the success or failure of an AMC.s strategic repositioning? Where success is based on the longterm sustainability of the new position.^ "An organization's strategic position is its perceptual location relative to others" (Gershon, 2003). Hence, strategic repositioning represents a shift from one strategic position within an environment to another (H. Mintzberg, 1987a). A deteriorating value proposition coupled with an unsustainable national health care financing system is forcing AMCs to change their strategic position. Where the value proposition is defined as the health outcome per dollar spent. ^ AMCs are of foundational importance to our health care system. They educate our new physicians, generate significant scientific breakthroughs, and care for our most difficult patients. Yet, their strategic, financial and business acumen leaves them particularly vulnerable in a changing environment. ^ After a literature review revealed limited writing on this subject, the research question was addressed using three separate but parallel exploratory case study inquiries of AMCs that recently underwent a strategic repositioning. Participating in the case studies were the Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.^ Each case study consisted of two major research segments; a thorough documentation review followed by semi-structured interviews of selected members of their governance board, executive and faculty leadership teams. While each case study.s circumstances varied, their response to the research question, as extracted through thematic coding and analysis of the interviews, had a high degree of commonality.^ The results identified managing the strategic risk surrounding the repositioning and leadership accountability as the two foundational elements of success or failure. Metrics and communication were important process elements. They both play a major role in managing the strategic repositioning risk communication loop. Sustainability, the final element, was the outcome sought.^ Factors leading to strategic repositioning included both internal and external pressures and were primarily financial or mission based. Timing was an important consideration as was the selection of the strategic repositioning endpoint.^ In conclusion, a framework for the strategic repositioning of AMCs was offered that integrates the findings of this study; the elements of success, the factors leading to strategic repositioning, and the risk communication loop. ^