Can routine health facility data be used to monitor subnational coverage of maternal, newborn and child health services in Uganda?

BACKGROUND: Routine health facility data are a critical source of local monitoring of progress and performance at the subnational level. Uganda has been using district health statistics from facility data for many years. We aimed to systematically assess data quality and examine different methods to obtain plausible subnational estimates of coverage for maternal, newborn and child health interventions. METHODS: Annual data from the Uganda routine health facility information system 2015-2019 for all 135 districts were used, as well as national surveys for external comparison and the identification of near-universal coverage interventions. The quality of reported data on antenatal and delivery care and child immunization was assessed through completeness of facility reporting, presence of extreme outliers and internal data consistencies. Adjustments were made when necessary. The denominators for the coverage indicators were derived from population projections and health facility data on near-universal coverage interventions. The coverage results with different denominators were compared with the results from household surveys. RESULTS: Uganda's completeness of reporting by facilities was near 100% and extreme outliers were rare. Inconsistencies in reported events, measured by annual fluctuations and between intervention consistency, were common and more among the 135 districts than the 15 subregions. The reported numbers of vaccinations were improbably high compared to the projected population of births or first antenatal visits - and especially so in 2015-2016. There were also inconsistencies between the population projections and the expected target population based on reported numbers of antenatal visits or immunizations. An alternative approach with denominators derived from facility data gave results that were more plausible and more consistent with survey results than based on population projections, although inconsistent results remained for substantive number of subregions and districts. CONCLUSION: Our systematic assessment of the quality of routine reports of key events and denominators shows that computation of district health statistics is possible with transparent adjustments and methods, providing a general idea of levels and trends for most districts and subregions, but that improvements in data quality are essential to obtain more accurate monitoring.

Evaluation of public health surveillance systems in refugee settlements in Uganda, 2016-2019: lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Civil wars in the Great Lakes region resulted in massive displacement of people to neighboring countries including Uganda. With associated disease epidemics related to this conflict, a disease surveillance system was established aiming for timely detection of diseases and rapid response to outbreaks. We describe the evaluation of and lessons learned from the public health surveillance system set up in refugee settlements in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems and the Uganda National Technical Guidelines for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in four refugee settlements in Uganda-Bidibidi, Adjumani, Kiryandongo and Rhino Camp. Using semi-structured questionnaires, key informant and focus group discussion guides, we interviewed 53 health facility leaders, 12 key personnel and 224 village health team members from 53 health facilities and 112 villages and assessed key surveillance functions and attributes. RESULTS: All health facilities assessed had key surveillance staff; 60% were trained on Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response and most village health teams were trained on disease surveillance. Case detection was at 55%; facilities lacked standard case definitions and were using parallel Implementing Partner driven reporting systems. Recording was at 79% and reporting was at 81%. Data analysis and interpretation was at 49%. Confirmation of outbreaks and events was at 76%. Preparedness was at 72%. Response was at 34%. Feedback was at 82%. Evaluate and improve the system was at 67%. There was low capacity for detection, response and data analysis and interpretation of cases (< 60%). CONCLUSION: The surveillance system in the refugee settlements was functional with many performing attributes but with many remaining gaps. There was low capacity for detection, response and data analysis and interpretation in all the refugee settlements. There is need for improvement to align surveillance systems in refugee settlements with the mainstream surveillance system in the country. Implementing Partners should be urged to offer support for surveillance and training of surveillance staff on Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response to maintain effective surveillance functions. Functionalization of district teams ensures achievement of surveillance functions and attributes. Regular supervision of and support to health facility surveillance personnel is essential. Harmonization of reporting improves surveillance functions and attributes and appropriation of funds by government to districts to support refugee settlements is complementary to maintain effective surveillance of priority diseases in the northern and central part of Uganda.