Based on the report of the Task Force that has been organized during the flu outbreak, the UPMC have spearhead the alarming environment, in which the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) handled the managing of issues relating to the programmed rationing and monitoring of the “health system” through coordination with other hospital and medical units. In addition, the public administration of issues on emergency response and medical management has enabled the organizing of ‘Influenza Task Force’ to monitor the scope of medical responses and magnitude of the outbreak (Spana et. al, 2005).
As cited, the environmental management and public administration was indicative of the role of the Influenza Task Force as a “deliberative body”, integrating the UPMC secondary medical organizations, individual medical practitioners and clinical experts, patients and families, several hospital administrators and technical expertise for information technology management (Spana et. al, 2005). It may be reflected that the “medical or clinical synergy” have been implemented by the Influenza Task Force that enabled the integration of necessary profession, skills and expertise to manage the environment and functional to public administration.
The organizing and mobilization of the “deliberative body” has somehow significantly mitigated or slowed down the continuance of the influenza outbreak, grimly determined to respond at the most difficult time of curing the disease with almost empty-handed treatment as a result of insufficient vaccines. Nature of policy system and processes of policy and decision making Reflective of the organizing and mobilization of the UPMC Influenza Task Force, the nature of policy system and processes of policy and decision making has been indicated in the local management and planning of collaborated actions responding to the health emergencies.
The flu outbreak and the insufficiency of vaccines were applied with the necessary and decisive decisions through the implementation of programmed rationing. Accordingly, the local health and Federal authorities have jointly executed the “policy prerogatives” to acknowledge the collective accountability of the Influenza Task Force as a “deliberative body” of diverse expertise and system, in which turned out to be an essential convenors and actors that enable an integrated decision making (Spana et. al, 2005).
To briefly explain the interpretation, it manifested the systems thinking that a collective or unified effort were brought together by the Influenza Task Force in order to plan, decide and enact the deliberate implementation of the rationing program since there was no choice or preference to effectively manage the crisis situation. Leadership, management and administrative ethics
Based on the overall review of the literature, it can be summarized that the UPMC has spearheaded the implementation of the rationing program as a “preferential option” or the least of the means to optimize the available resources according to prioritization and urgency response to the cases of patients. The vaccine treatments have been coordinated with several medical institutions and clinics in order to manage the scope of “deliverables”, referring to a case-to-case basis of treatment in priority areas of communities (Spana et. al, 2005).