Raju Tamang’s Updates
INDIA- Monitoring system
JUSTIFICATION
I have selected the transformative investment of using information system to increase the vaccination coverage by ensuring availability of quality data. Performance of immunization programme is a key driving force to meet the Sustainable Development Goal 3. Immunization Programme in India was introduced in 1978 as Expanded Programme of Immunization (EPI). The programme gained momentum in 1985 and was expanded as Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) to be implemented in phased manner to cover all districts in the country by 1989-90. India with one of the largest Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) in the world necessitates provisioning of quality data to act as evidence for effective decision making. The full immunization coverage (FIC) stands at 62% (NFHS 2, 2015-16) and the administrative data shows an FIC of 95.6% (HMSI 2017-18). This starkling disparity between the data could primarily be attributed to the data quality and synthesis. Hence, of the various constraints identified for effective programming of immunization programme in India, poor data management and analysis for evidence generation has been one of the key challenges.
Since the inception of UIP, India’s had set up a reporting mechanism from the health center to national level. In last few years, country has also introduced electronic data systems like HMIS and MCTS to improve reporting, analysis, monitoring and planning at all levels. However, there are big gaps in quality of data being reported, its analysis and use for decision making and thus leading to inadequate information to support NTAGI and UIP to design and implement strategies to improve immunization quality and coverage. Few case studies also reveal the issue of discordance between data sources, intrinsic data quality issues in the available data. It has also been pronounced that besides compilation of data, its methodology used in data collection should be maintained to ensure valid comparison between data generated from various sources
The key facets of data quality viz., availability, completeness, consistency and agreement of data needs to be cautiously maintained to ensure enhanced actionable strategies. It is of paramount importance that data is of the highest quality, hence use of information system will immensely useful to guide programme actions.
PRIORITIZATION
The process of prioritization of strategies emanates out from the need for multidimensional, accurate and timely information in order to address issues related to quality and equity in the immunization programme. The whole gamut of M&E system, ranging from data collection, collation, analysis and use of data quality needs careful assessment with a broader perspective, focusing on support mechanisms as well as on technicalities. Way back in 1983, Indian Journal of Public Health commented in the editorial on the need for HMIS in India. “A good health service superstructure can be built only on a solid base provided by the reliable health statistics collected through a well organised infrastructure”. The several inadequacies in the HMIS system make it very unreliable and undependable. The available research findings suggest that HMIS in many of the African and Asian countries is very weak and suffers the same limitations as India.
Evidently, the efficient use of health data for decisions and actions to improve the quality of health services and achieve performance goals is the vital ingredient of shared accountability. Hence the three strategies encompassing data collection to ensuring quality data (in terms of accuracy and reliability) and use as evidence for decision making have been carefully carved out to confer to the transformative investment of information system to increase the vaccination coverage by ensuring availability of quality data
Strategy 1: Use and interpret performance data to drive programmes
Data is crucial to demonstrate and evaluate the impact of an intervention, monitor progress towards a goal, determine barriers to care, and influence public policy. In India, data are collected in vast amounts but are mostly incomplete, unreliable and unused. Appropriate and timely analysis and use of health and health-related information for decision-making is an essential element in the process of transforming the health sector. Hence it is significantly important to ensure timely and effective use and interpretation of the performance data to lead programme in the right direction
Strategy 2: Improve administrative coverage data recording and collection
Administrative data can provide a strong basis from which to guide planning, review progress, and address gaps in areas with low-coverage or high drop-out rates; if accurate, timely reporting occurs at each level. Even general information is collected every time and reported afresh. Every month many things are entered afresh. Information declared once is not stored in to the formats. It has to be supplied every month increasing the sense scope for error. Using data as evidence to inform the development of health care has grown out of the use of science to choose the best decisions. It is based on data being collected in a methodical way. Harmonizing the data collection, standards, best practices, and other elements of a national health information system. Standardization enables economies of scale for training, hardware and software, and processes. To collect, collate, analyze, and communicate the necessary information in a timely and understandable fashion requires organized processes and procedures and a comprehensive data system
Strategy 3: Increase accuracy and reliability of data aggregation and feedback
Public health decision-makers are often overwhelmed with large quantities of data, evidence, reviews and summaries. As the volume of information increases, the need for trusted sources of synthesis becomes greater. There are issues of exhaustive information collected but hardly used. Systems Model is based on the core principle that input is processed into output and fed back to the input. It is a complete process where in each and every stage is important and contributes to the overall improvement of the system. But the information collected from the health facility is never fed back to them after processing. It is just supplied to the top tiers of administrative hierarchy.
Decisions at different levels of the health sector can only be effective if they are backed with accurate and reliable information
ACTIVITY PLANNING
Logical arguments have been advanced on the prioritized strategies and when supported with evidence of literature it will enrich the work.
Prior to activity planning, it is advised to do a good RI review basing on an available data anad identify bottlenecks/challenges. This will give direction of the other activities the will foll as the base wil be already built. The authr is advised to inlude something on thorough datadesk review BEFORE putting other activities.
Strategy 1: Use and interpret performance data to drive programmes
Activity | Activity details | Stakeholders | Integration (Yes/No/ May be) |
1. Development of indicators and dashboard which details performance and trend |
Identification and development of data elements and indicators at each levels of service delivery including the health facility, block, district and state. This will include development of dashboard on key performance indicators and trend analysis which will aid in development of annual action plan. Mapping is a very useful tool for displaying data on the progress of an immunization programme towards indicators. Simple maps, such as spot maps and shaded maps, can illustrate the distribution of cases of vaccine-preventable diseases, or display coverage data. At every level, staff should use the data they have collected to monitor progress towards indicators for their catchment area. This will allow them to examine priority locations that may have performed poorly in the past, or areas that have experienced an unexpected change in the quality of performance. |
Government and immunization partners at all levels including WHO, UNICEF | Yes |
2. Updation of coverage monitoring chart including highlighting dropouts, coverage trends |
A coverage/drop-out monitoring chart is a simple and effective tool for visually monitoring the progress towards immunization coverage targets across a region or area. This will aid the managers in aiding the programme management. Each level, from health facility to the national level, should display a current coverage/drop-out monitoring chart on the wall, so it is important that mid-level managers are familiar. |
Program managers at each level, government at national level and immunization partners including WHO, UNICEF, UNDP | Yes |
3. Review meeting on a monthly basis to discuss on data analysis and use |
At the end of every month, district and state managers need to review all the data. It will be important to scan incoming reports focus on priority indicators and areas | Program managers at each level (block/ district/ state and national) | May be |
Strategy 2: Improve administrative coverage data recording and collection
Activity | Activity details | Stakeholders | Integration (Yes/No/ May be) |
1. Conduct Data quality assessments to check the accuracy and reliability of the data | Identify districts (high and low performing), and conduct data quality assessment in each category and then repeat the activity in six months time. | State and District Immunization Officer, supported by immunization partners (WHO and UNICEF) | May be |
2. Provisioning of a robust feedback mechanism at each levels of immunization service delivery |
Identify key indicators and provide feedback to each health service delivery level and establish a ‘closing the loop’ mechanism by reporting action taken report. |
State and District Immunization Officer | Yes |
3. Supportive supervisory visit to poor performing service delivery points to check data quality |
Active supervision is one way to collect data that is not otherwise captured in passive reports such as tally sheets, or monthly reports. ‘Supportive supervision’ refers to the process of detecting problems and identifying solutions by working with staff, recognizing achievements, and avoiding blame and criticism. The districts need to be identified as high and low focus ones and supportive supervisory visit needs to be made to ensure data quality checks. A checklist needs to be prepared for the activity, and analysis of the findings needs to be shared with the concerned district for action | State and District Immunization Officer, supported by immunization partners (WHO and UNICEF) | Yes |
M&E
Monitoring is an important tool for the porgram managers. It can help improve the quality of the immunization programme by ensuring:
- all infants and pregnant women are immunized
- vaccines and safe injections equipment are delivered in correct quantities and on time
- staffs are well trained and adequately supervised
- information on disease incidence and AEFI are collected and analysed
- the community has confidence in the vaccine
Monitoring systems is key to measuring immunization implementation and surveillance of vaccine preventable diseases to be able to identify areas to leverage and areas for improvement. Ultimately this will lead to informed decision for program improvement and sustainability. The activities outlined to achieve the strategies will be measured using a robust mechanism by first identification of key indicators, numerator, denominator and visualization as illustrated in the matrix below. This will primarily include supporting improved data collection, analysis, building skills of the data handlers and works towards enhancing
Sl | Indicator | Numerator | Denominator | Visualization |
% of monthly dashboards developed in a year | Number of monthly dashboards developed in a year | 12 expected in a year | State wise map (Yes/No) | |
% of health facilities have an up-to-date coverage/drop-out monitoring chart |
Number of health facilities have an up-to-date coverage/drop-out monitoring chart | Total number of health facilities | Block/ district/ state map | |
% review meeting held in the district in a year | Number of review meeting held in the district | 12 expected in a year | District wise map | |
% of data handlers trained on recording and reporting tool | Number of data handlers trained | Number of data handlers in position | District wise map | |
% of Data Entry operator (DEO) trained on RCH portal | Number of DEO trained | Number of DEO in position | District wise map | |
Districts where Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is conducted | Districts where DQA is conducted | Districts where DQA was planned | District wise map (Yes/ No) | |
% BCG coverage in children < 1 year of age | Number of children < 1 year of age received BCG vaccination | Number of children < 1 year of age | State wise/ district wise map | |
% of supportive supervision visits made during a quarter |
Number of supportive supervision visits made during a quarter |
Number of supportive supervision visits planned during a quarter | State/ district wise map | |
% of vacant positions (data handlers) that were positioned during the quarter. | Number of vacant positions (data handlers) that were positioned during the quarter. | Total of vacant positions (data handlers) during the quarter. | State/ district map |