Abstract

BackgroundEnsuring that data collected through national health information systems are of sufficient quality for meaningful interpretation is a challenge in many resource-limited countries. An assessment was conducted to identify strengths and weaknesses of the health data management and reporting systems that capture and transfer routine monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data in Botswana.MethodsThis was a descriptive, qualitative assessment. In-depth interviews were conducted at the national (n = 27), district (n = 31), and facility/community (n = 71) levels to assess i) M&E structures, functions, and capabilities; ii) indicator definitions and reporting guidelines; iii) data collection forms and tools; iv) data management processes; and v) links with the national reporting system. A framework analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti v6.1.ResultsHealth programs generally had standardized data collection and reporting tools and defined personnel for M&E responsibilities at the national and district levels. Best practices unique to individual health programs were identified and included a variety of relatively low-resource initiatives such as attention to staffing patterns, making health data more accessible for evidence-based decision-making, developing a single source of information related to indicator definitions, data collection tools, and management processes, and utilization of supportive supervision visits to districts and facilities. Weakness included limited ownership of M&E-related duties within facilities, a lack of tertiary training programs to build M&E skills, few standard practices related to confidentiality and document storage, limited dissemination of indicator definitions, and limited functionality of electronic data management systems.ConclusionsAddressing fundamental M&E system issues, further standardization of M&E practices, and increasing health services management responsiveness to time-sensitive information are critical to sustain progress related to health service delivery in Botswana. In addition to high-resource initiatives, such as investments in electronic medical record systems and tertiary training programs, there are a variety of low-resource initiatives, such as regular data quality checks, that can strengthen national health information systems. Applying best practices that are effective within one health program to data management and reporting systems of other programs is a practical approach for strengthening health informatics and improving data quality.

Highlights

  • Ensuring that data collected through national health information systems are of sufficient quality for meaningful interpretation is a challenge in many resource-limited countries

  • The district monitoring and evaluation (M&E) officer may be responsible for receiving programmatic data in one district, while the same type of data would be received by the community health nurse or programmatic focal person in another district

  • At both the national and district level, staff with M&E and data management responsibilities often reported having competing priorities, which interfered with routine M&E functions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ensuring that data collected through national health information systems are of sufficient quality for meaningful interpretation is a challenge in many resource-limited countries. High quality health information is critical for addressing global health challenges and building strong public health systems [4]. It is necessary for monitoring program goals and objectives, guiding evidence-based program management, and ensuring appropriate policy formulation and resource allocation. Health information systems rely on multiple sources of data such as household surveys, vital registration, census, and routine monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of health services for information [5]. Collected M&E data can provide important information related to the delivery of national health programs when data are of high quality. In many resourcelimited settings, ensuring data of sufficient quality for meaningful interpretation remains a challenge [5]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call