The burden of recording and reporting health data in primary health care facilities in five low- and lower-middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Recording and reporting health data in facilities is the backbone of routine health information systems which provide data collected by health facility workers during service provision. Data is firstly collected in a register, to record patient health data and care process, and tallied into nationally designed reporting forms. While there is anecdotal evidence of large numbers of registers and reporting forms for primary health care (PHC) facilities, there are few systematic studies to document this potential burden on health workers. This multi-country study aimed to document the numbers of registers and reporting forms use at the PHC level and to estimate the time it requires for health workers to meet data demands. METHODS: In Cambodia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania, a desk review was conducted to document registers and reporting forms mandated at the PHC level. In each country, visits to 16 randomly selected public PHC facilities followed to assess the time spent on paper-based recording and reporting. Information was collected through self-reports of estimated time use by health workers, and observation of 1360 provider-patient interactions. Data was primarily collected in outpatient care (OPD), antenatal care (ANC), immunization (EPI), family planning (FP), HIV and Tuberculosis (TB) services. RESULT: Cross-countries, the average number of registers was 34 (ranging between 16 and 48). Of those, 77% were verified in use and each register line had at least 20 cells to be completed per patient. The mean time spent on recording was about one-third the total consultation time for OPD, FP, ANC and EPI services combined. Cross-countries, the average number of monthly reporting forms was 35 (ranging between 19 and 52) of which 78% were verified in use. The estimated time to complete monthly reporting forms was 9 h (ranging between 4 to 15 h) per month per health worker. CONCLUSIONS: PHC facilities are mandated to use many registers and reporting forms pausing a considerable burden to health workers. Service delivery systems are expected to vary, however an imperative need remains to invest in international standards of facility-based registers and reporting forms, to ensure regular, comparable, quality-driven facility data collection and use.

Global accreditation practices for accelerated medically trained clinicians: a view of five countries.

BACKGROUND: Shortages and maldistribution of healthcare workers persist despite efforts to increase the number of practitioners. Evidence to support policy planning and decisions is essential. The World Health Organization has proposed National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA) to facilitate human resource information systems for effective health workforce planning and monitoring. In this study, we report on the accreditation practices for accelerated medically trained clinicians in five countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia, and Mongolia. METHOD: Using open-ended survey responses and document review, information about accreditation practices was classified using NHWA indicators. We examined practices using this framework and further examined the extent to which the indicators were appropriate for this cadre of healthcare providers. We developed a data extraction tool and noted any indicators that were difficult to interpret in the local context. RESULTS: Accreditation practices in the five countries are generally aligned with the WHO indicators with some exceptions. All countries had standards for pre-service and in-service training. It was difficult to determine the extent to which social accountability and social determinants of health were explicitly part of accreditation practices as this cadre of practitioners evolved out of community health needs. Other areas of discrepancy were interprofessional education and continuing professional development. DISCUSSION: While it is possible to use NHWA module 3 indicators there are disadvantages as well, at least for accelerated medically trained clinicians. There are aspects of accreditation practices that are not readily coded in the standard definitions used for the indicators. While the indicators provide detailed definitions, some invite social desirability bias and others are not as easily understood by practitioners whose roles continue to evolve and adapt to their health systems. CONCLUSION: Regular review and revision of indicators are essential to facilitate uptake of the NHWA for planning and monitoring healthcare providers.