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.^

Global practice experience: A useful lens for understanding patient and staff perceptions of successful integration of health information technology in primary care

Making healthcare comprehensive and more efficient remains a complex challenge. Health Information Technology (HIT) is recognized as an important component of this transformation but few studies describe HIT adoption and it's effect on the bedside experience by physicians, staff and patients. This study applied descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to data from the Patient-Centered Medical Home National Demonstration Project (NDP) of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Thirty-six clinics were followed for 26 months by clinician/staff questionnaires and patient surveys. This study characterizes those clinics as well as staff and patient perspectives on HIT usefulness, the doctor-patient relationship, electronic medical record (EMR) implementation, and computer connections in the practice throughout the study. The Global Practice Experience factor, a composite score related to key components of primary care, was then correlated to clinician and patient perspectives. This study found wide adoption of HIT among NDP practices. Patient perspectives on HIT helpfulness on the doctor-patient showed a suggestive trend that approached statistical significance (p = 0.172). Clinicians and staff noted successful integration of EMR into clinic workflow and their perception of helpfulness to the doctor-patient relationship show a suggestive increase also approaching statistical significance (p=0.06). GPE was correlated with clinician/staff assessment of a helpful doctor-patient relationship midway through the study (R 0.460, p = 0.021) with the remaining time points nearing statistical significance. GPE was also correlated to both patient perspectives of EMR helpfulness in the doctor-patient relationship (R 0.601, p = 0.001) and computer connections (R 0.618, p = 0.0001) at the start of the study. ^

Use of a modified delphi process for establishing occupational exposure limits in support of health surveillance for space travelers

On-orbit exposures can come from numerous factors related to the space environment as evidenced by almost 50 years of environmental samples collected for water analysis, air analysis, radiation analysis, and physiologic parameters. For astronauts and spaceflight participants the occupational exposures can be very different from those experienced by workers performing similar tasks in workplaces on Earth, because the duration of the exposure could be continuous for very long orbital, and eventually interplanetary, missions. The establishment of long-term exposure standards is vital to controlling the quality of the spacecraft environment over long periods. NASA often needs to update and revise its prior exposure standards (Spacecrafts Maximum Allowable Concentrations (SMACs)). Traditional standards-setting processes are often lengthy, so a more rapid method to review and establish standards would be a substantial advancement in this area. This project investigates use of the Delphi method for this purpose. ^ In order to achieve the objectives of this study a modified Delphi methodology was tested in three trials executed by doctoral students and a panel of experts in disciplines related to occupational safety and health. During each test/trial modifications were made to the methodology. Prior to submission of the Delphi Questionnaire to the panel of experts a pilot study/trial was conducted using five doctoral students with the goals of testing and adjusting the Delphi questionnaire to improve comprehension, work out any procedural issues and evaluate the effectiveness of the questionnaire in drawing the desired responses. The remainder of the study consisted of two trials of the Modified Delphi process using 6 chemicals that currently have the potential of causing occupational exposures to NASA astronauts or spaceflight participants. To assist in setting Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL), the expert panel was established consisting of experts from academia, government and industry. Evidence was collected and used to create close-ended questionnaires which were submitted to the Delphi panel of experts for the establishment of OEL values for three chemicals from the list of six originally selected (trial 1). Once the first Delphi trial was completed, adjustments were made to the Delphi questionnaires and the process above was repeated with the remaining 3 chemicals (trial 2). ^ Results indicate that experience in occupational safety and health and with OEL methodologies can have a positive effect in minimizing the time experts take in completing this process. Based on the results of the questionnaires and comparison of the results with the SMAC already established by NASA, we conclude that use of the Delphi methodology is appropriate for use in the decision-making process for the selection of OELs.^