Who supported injury surveillance in africa
Download
1 / 16

Click to open PPT file 185 KB - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 555 Views
  • Uploaded on

Surveillance sites: ( City of Maputo - all Provincial and Central hospitals n=4) ... Data were channeled from the hospitals to the health bureau. ...

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Click to open PPT file 185 KB' - isaac


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Who supported injury surveillance in africa l.jpg

WHO supported Injury Surveillance in Africa

Dr. Olive C. Kobusingye, WHO/AFRO

Ms. Kidist Bartolomeos, WHO Mozambique

Ms. Malin Ahrne, WHO Ethiopia

Dr. Muluken Melese, WHO Ethiopia

Mr. Milton Mutto, ICC-U Uganda


Afro at a glance l.jpg
AFRO at a glance

  • 46 countries

  • Wide variation in size, level of development, resources, population structure

  • 3 “official” languages French, English, Portuguese


Countries with who supported surveillance l.jpg
Countries with WHO supported surveillance

  • Advanced implementation:

    • Ethiopia

    • Uganda

    • Mozambique

  • Planning stages:

    • Ghana

    • Kenya

  • Expressed interest:

    • Senegal, Guinea, Rwanda


Results prelim of capacity survey l.jpg
Results (prelim) of capacity survey

  • 46 countries surveyed, 35 responded (76%)

  • Most countries collect fatal & nonfatal injury

  • Dissemination is by hard copy reports


Mozambique l.jpg
Mozambique

  • Injury Surveillance started in 2000

  • Surveillance sites: ( City of Maputo - all Provincial and Central hospitals n=4)

  • System used (ICECI based- code for mechanism adapted after evaluation)

  • Method of data capture: log books, if “reason for visit” is an injury

  • Personnel that collect data: registration clerks


Mozambique6 l.jpg
Mozambique

  • Data storage (on logbook and summary table into a computer)

  • Data analysis ( 2 hospitals have computerized data entry and analysis, 2 hospitals do analysis by hand and send summary table to MOH. Compilation by MOH)

  • Software (Originally was Epi-info and now looking to change to Excel )

  • Reference manual (None; staff use alist with definitions of terms used for “mechanism of Injury”)


Mozambique7 l.jpg
Mozambique

  • Data interpretation, reporting, dissemination

    • Until July 2004, data was collected only at 1 hospital (Maputo Central Hospital)

    • Data was compiled and used for daily and monthly hospital statistics, and was sent to hospital director and MOH as requested

    • Since July 2004, system expanded to the 3 hospitals in Maputo. All hospitals prepare their own reports and send to MoH for compilation.


Ethiopia l.jpg
Ethiopia

  • The pilot started in 2003. The integrated DHIS with the new free software started late 2004.

  • Data were channeled from the hospitals to the health bureau.

  • The health bureau analyzed and prepared the report.

  • Regional reports are also sent to the Federal MOH.

  • With the new free software, data are collected from health posts, health centers and hospitals. The information flow is the same as above.


Ethiopia9 l.jpg
Ethiopia

  • Surveillance sites:Government Health posts, health centers and hospitals

  • Classification system:ICD 6 with additional codes for injuries

  • Method of data capture: Log book filled by health workers and then entered into computer by data entry clerks

  • Data storage:Paper copies and software

  • Data analysis:After the trial period with the new software, each level should analyze their own data


Ethiopia10 l.jpg
Ethiopia

  • Data interpretation, reporting, dissemination:

    • It is tried only in the Addis Ababa health Bureau for the time being and after the trial it will be replicated to the other Federal States.

    • The dissemination and the frequency of reporting is not yet decided.


Uganda l.jpg
Uganda

  • Pilot surveillance began in 1996 at a district hospital

  • The Injury Control Center – Uganda trained staff, compiled data, analyzed it, interpreted it, and made reports

  • Reports shared with multi-sectoral group, in addition to MOH

  • Expanded to 2 hospitals late 1997


Uganda12 l.jpg
Uganda

  • Surveillance sites: now 4 regional & 1 National hospitals

  • Classification system: ICD 10 with modification

  • Method of data capture: paper copies filled by health workers. ICC-U still does entry and analysis

  • Data storage: Paper copies and computer database

  • Data analysis: computerized with Stata 8 & Epi Info 3.3

  • Since 2003, injuries also reported by all health units as part of Integrated Disease surveillance.


General challenges l.jpg
General challenges

  • No budget for injury surveillance

  • Incomplete collection at health unit level.

  • Lack of trained personnel for data entry and analysis.

  • Health care system understaffed and overloaded.

  • Software problems


Lessons learnt l.jpg
Lessons learnt

  • More budget needed

  • More training the human resources before undertaking surveillance

  • More consultations from experts during software development,

  • Start small, learn from it and expand.


Lessons learnt 2 l.jpg
Lessons learnt 2

  • For a surveillance system to be effective and useful in a setting like African hospitals it needs to be flexible.

  • Needs to be designed at the level of the staff that will be involved

  • Data collection shouldn’t be an added task, but integrated as much as possible with the daily routine of the staff

  • Needs buy in from management as well as MOH (hospital and ED directors)


Other comments l.jpg
Other comments

  • Data collection VS Surveillance : sometimes leads to confusion. At what level is it considered surveillance??

  • There appears to be a catch 22: if MOH is not interested, injury surveillance could be done by interested individuals and agencies – it might get done well, but results not get used. But it may take a very long time to get MOH interested. What do you do in the meantime?


ad