Electronic reporting of integrated disease surveillance and response: lessons learned from northeast, Nigeria, 2019.

BACKGROUND: Electronic reporting of integrated disease surveillance and response (eIDSR) was implemented in Adamawa and Yobe states, Northeastern Nigeria, as an innovative strategy to improve disease reporting. Its objectives were to improve the timeliness and completeness of IDSR reporting by health facilities, prompt identification of public health events, timely information sharing, and public health action. We evaluated the project to determine whether it met its set objectives. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess and document the lessons learned from the project. We reviewed the performance of the local government areas (LGAs) on timeliness and completeness of reporting, rumors identification, and reporting on the eIDSR and the traditional paper-based system using a checklist. Respondents were interviewed online on the relevance, efficiency, sustainability, project progress and effectiveness, the effectiveness of management, and potential impact and scalability of the strategy using structured questionnaires. Data were cleaned, analyzed, and presented as proportions using an MS Excel spreadsheet. Responses were also presented as direct quotes. RESULTS: The number of health facilities reporting IDSR increased from 103 to 228 (117%) before and after implementation of the eIDSR respectively. The timeliness of reporting was 43% in the LGA compared to 73% in health facilities implementing eIDSR. The completeness of IDSR reports in the last 6 months before the evaluation was ≥85%. Of the 201 rumors identified and verified, 161 (80%) were from the eIDSR pilot sites. The majority of the stakeholders interviewed believed that eIDSR met its predetermined objectives for public health surveillance. The benefits of eIDSR included timely reporting and response to alerts and disease outbreaks, improved timeliness, and completeness of reporting, and supportive supervision to the operational levels. The strategy helped stakeholders to appreciate their roles in public health surveillance. CONCLUSION: The eIDSR has increased the number of health facilities reporting IDSR, enabled early identification, reporting, and verification of alerts, improved timeliness and completeness of reports, and supportive supervision of staff at the operational levels. It was well accepted by the stakeholder as a system that made reporting easy with the potential to improve the public health surveillance system in Nigeria.

A rapid assessment of the implementation of integrated disease surveillance and response system in Northeast Nigeria, 2017.

BACKGROUND: Integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) is the strategy adopted for public health surveillance in Nigeria. IDSR has been operational in Nigeria since 2001 but the functionality varies from state to state. The outbreaks of cerebrospinal meningitis and cholera in 2017 indicated weakness in the functionality of the system. A rapid assessment of the IDSR was conducted in three northeastern states to identify and address gaps to strengthen the system. METHOD: The survey was conducted at the state and local government areas using standard IDSR assessment tools which were adapted to the Nigerian context. Checklists were used to extract data from reports and records on resources and tools for implementation of IDSR. Questionnaires were used to interview respondents on their capacities to implement IDSR. Quantitative data were entered into an MS Excel spreadsheet, analysed and presented in proportions. Qualitative data were summarised and reported by thematic area. RESULTS: A total of 34 respondents participated in the rapid survey from six health facilities and six local government areas (LGAs). Of the 2598 health facilities in the three states, only 606 (23%) were involved in reporting IDSR. The standard case definitions were available in all state and LGA offices and health facilities visited. Only 41 (63%) and 31 (47.7%) of the LGAs in the three states had rapid response teams and epidemic preparedness and response committees respectively. The Disease Surveillance and Notification Officers (DSNOs) and clinicians' knowledge were limited to only timeliness and completeness among over 10 core indicators for IDSR. Review of the facility registers revealed many missing variables; the commonly missed variables were patients' age, sex, diagnosis and laboratory results. CONCLUSIONS: The major gaps were poor documentation of patients' data in the facility registers, inadequate reporting tools, limited participation of health facilities in IDSR and limited capacities of personnel to identify, report IDSR priority diseases, analyze and interpret IDSR data for decision making. Training of surveillance focal persons, provision of IDSR reporting tools and effective supportive supervisions will strengthen the system in the country.