1 Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1

Monitoring and evaluation of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in selected districts in Tanzania

S.F. RUMISHA1*, L.E.G. MBOERA1, K.P. SENKORO1, D. GUEYE2, and P.K. MMBUJI3 1National Institute for Medical Research, P.O. Box 9653,Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 2Partners for Health Reform Plus, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA 3Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, P.O. Box 9083, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Abstract: Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) is a strategy developed by the World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa in 1998. The Ministry of Health, Tanzania has adopted this strategy for strengthening communicable diseases surveillance in the country. In order to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of IDSR monitoring and evaluating the performance of the surveillance system, identifying areas that require strengthening and taking action is important. This paper presents the findings of baseline data collection for the period October–December 2003 in 12 districts representing eight . The districts involved were Mbulu, Babati, Rural, Mpwapwa, Igunga, Tabora Urban, Mwanza Urban, Muleba, Nkasi, Sumbawanga Rural, Tunduru and Masasi. Results are grouped into three key areas: surveillance reporting, use of surveillance data and management of the IDSR system. In general, reporting systems are weak, both in terms of receiving all reports from all facilities in a timely manner, and in managing those reports at the district level. Routine analysis of surveillance data is not being done at facility or district levels, and districts do not monitor the performance of their surveillance system. There was also good communication and coordination with other sectors in terms of sharing information and resources. It is important that districts’ capacity on IDSR is strengthened to enable them monitor and evaluate their own performance using established indicators. Key words: integrated disease surveillance, monitoring, evaluation, Tanzania

Introduction Guidelines for IDSR focus on 13 priority diseases, which include epidemic prone diseases (cholera, Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) bacillary dysentery, plague, measles, yellow fever, is a strategy developed by the World Health cerebro-spinal meningitis, rabies), diseases targeted Organization Regional Office for Africa (WHO/ for elimination/eradication (acute flaccid paralysis, AFRO) in 1998. It is aimed to assist health workers neonatal tetanus) and diseases of public health to detect and respond to diseases of epidemic potential, importance (diarrhoea in children <5years, pneumonia of public health importance and those targeted for in <5 years, malaria and typhoid) (MoH, 2001). eradication and elimination. The information collected In February 2000, the National Institute for through this strategy will help district health teams to Medical Research, Tanzania spearheaded the respond quickly to outbreaks, set priorities, plan establishment of the East African Integrated Disease interventions, and mobilize and allocate resources. The Surveillance Network with the objective of creating a IDSR strategy links community, health facility, forum for sharing epidemiological information in the district, regional and national levels with the overall region (Rumisha et al., 2003; Mboera et al., 2004). objective of providing epidemiological evidence for The experienced gained by the Institute, was utilised use in making decisions and implementing public to support the implementation of IDSR strategy in 12 health interventions for the control and prevention of selected districts in 8 regions of Tanzania. communicable diseases. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the project’s Tanzania has been a leader among African implementation is an important component to ensure countries to adopt the IDSR strategy, being the first that the project is accomplishing its goals. The to conduct an assessment and develop a plan of action assessment reported in this paper focused on baseline in 1998. This was followed by the development of a monitoring and evaluation activities carried out before work plan for integrating and strengthening disease any of the districts had received training in IDSR surveillance, establishment of an IDSR Task Force planned to take place in April 2004. The purpose of (2000), preparation of the National Guidelines for this assessment was therefore, to gather specific Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (2001), information on the performance of IDSR systems in development of laboratory-networking guidelines each of the districts selected. (2001), and adaptation and approval of the WHO/ AFRO district analysis book (2002). The National

*Correspondance: Susan F. Rumisha ; E-mail:[email protected] Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 2

Materials and Methods Group interviews were organized to gather information about activities related to IDSR that had Study area occurred during the period under review. The group This work was carried out in 12 districts, which format was used because the purpose was not to accounts for 10% of all districts in Tanzania. The evaluate individual performance, but rather to assess districts included Babati and Mbulu (Manyara IDSR activities as a whole. Participants were often Region), Dodoma Rural and Mpwapwa (Dodoma asked to provide examples to support their responses. Region), Mwanza Urban (Mwanza Region), Muleba This served as a means of verifying that the question (Kagera Region), Tabora Urban and Igunga (Tabora had been understood and attempting to assure the Region), Sumbawanga Rural and Nkasi (Rukwa validity of the responses provided, rather than just Region), Tunduru (Ruvuma Region) and Masasi relying on yes/no answers. At the district level, the (Mtwara Region) . interview involved key members of the council The performance areas that were targeted for (district) health management teams (CHMT), monitoring were categorised into three groups: including the District Medical Officer (DMO), the reporting, use of surveillance data and management District Health Officer (DHO), who in some of the of the IDSR system. A total of 34 indicators were districts was the IDSR Focal Person, the Health developed that cover these categories at the regional, Management Information System (HMIS) Focal district and health facility levels. Eight of these are Person, the Expanded Programme on Immunisation based on the core indicators proposed by the World (EPI) Focal Person, and others involved in IDSR. In Health Organization/Regional Office for Africa areas were the IDSR Focal Person was someone other (WHO/AFRO) IDSR Task Force for monitoring than the DHO, then this person was also included in progress with implementation of IDSR in the African the interview. At health facilities the in-charge and region. These are focused on the district level and are one other staff person, when available, were being used for self-monitoring by several countries. interviewed. At the regional level, key members of the Regional Health Management Team including the Study design Regional Medical Officer (RMO), Regional Health At the health facility level, a sampling framework Officer (RHO), IDSR focal person, HMIS focal person was developed that included one hospital, two health and EPI focal person were involved in the group centres and 15% of dispensaries for each district. A interviews. total of 109 health facilities were visited. Within each Data collection was carried out from January- district the selection of health facilities was made on March 2004.Data collectors provided feedback to each a convenience basis with an effort to make the sample health facility on the results of the M&E. At the end as representative as possible, taking into consideration of data collection in a district a debriefing meeting time and transport constraints. However, in some was also held with members of the CHMT to discuss districts the selection of health centres and dispensaries facility and district results. was truly random. The main mechanisms used to collect the required Data analysis data included record review and group interviews. At Data entry and check files were prepared in Epi Info the district level, weekly and monthly surveillance version 6 for the interview and report accuracy data reports submitted by all health facilities for the period collection instruments. Data from the record reviews October to December 2003, report tracking tools, was entered into Excel spreadsheets. The data were results of data analysis, minutes of meetings then transferred to Excel and STATA version 7 to make conducted, schedules and reports for health education one master file containing all information from all and other activities, and Comprehensive Council forms. Frequency distributions were calculated for all Health Plans were reviewed and documented. At the variables. The master database was then cleaned and facility level, register, copies of weekly and monthly analysed using conventional statistical methods. reports at facility for October to December 2003, results of data analysis, schedules and reports for Results community outreach activities and standard case definitions were reviewed. At the regional level, a Completeness and timeliness of surveillance review was done on weekly and monthly reports reporting submitted by all districts in the region for the period A total of 109 health facilities were included in the October to December 2003. monitoring and evaluation of the IDSR strategy. Of 3 Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 these, 12 were hospitals, 24 health centres and 74 Completeness for district reports to the region was dispensaries. Except for Sumbawanga Rural District, much higher, 66% (range: 31-90%) for weekly reports hospitals were surveyed in all the districts. and 80% (range: 50-100%) for monthly reports overall Dodoma Rural and Masasi districts were not using (Figure 2). It should be noted that these results cover the weekly surveillance reports during this period and all districts within the regions, not only those were thus not included in weekly calculations. participating in IDSR activities. Kagera, Rukwa and Different deadlines were found in the districts for Tabora regions all achieved 100% coverage of monthly and weekly reports. The weekly reporting monthly reporting. period was not standard in most of the districts, Eleven of the twelve districts were tracking although this was less of a problem for monthly timeliness, either directly on the reports or on a reports. Even within the same district the facilities tracking form. No data were available for Dodoma were found to have different days of starting and Rural and Masasi districts because they were not using ending the report week (for example, from Tuesday weekly reports, while Tunduru was not tracking to Monday or Friday to Thursday). Local deadlines timeliness for weekly reports. Some districts recorded for each district were used to assess the timeliness of the actual dates that reports were received, while others the reports from health facilities. For the October – only marked timely or late, which did not allow for December period under review, three monthly reports independent verification. and 13 weekly reports were expected. Total reporting completeness for all districts was 33% (range: 7-71%) for monthly reports and 19% (range: 1-48%) for weekly reports (Figure 1). In 100% 90% general, completeness was higher for monthly reports 80% than for weekly reports. None of the districts met the 70% 60% Weekly target of receiving 80% of expected reports for the 50% Monthly quarter. Tunduru had the highest rate of monthly 40% reporting, but one of the lowest weekly rates. Nkasi 30% 20% was the most consistent, with approximately 50% of 10% 0%

% of district reports submitted to region its facilities reporting on a weekly and monthly basis Dodoma Kagera Manyara Mtwara Mwanza Rukwa Ruvuma Tabora Total (Figure 1). When inquiring about poor reporting Regions performance in some facilities, it was found that the periods of poorest performance often correlated to the periods when the person responsible for reporting was Figure 2: Completeness of district reporting to on leave. region

100% The overall timeliness of reporting was only 8% 90% (range 0-19%) for weekly reports and 24% (range: 3- 80% 56%) for monthly reports (Figure 3). Timeliness was 70% measured as the percentage of expected reports 60% 50% received by the due date. Tunduru had the highest rate

district 40% of timeliness for monthly reports (56%), while Muleba 30% and Mwanza Urban had the highest rates for weekly 20% reports, at 18% and 19%, respectively. Igunga had 0% 10% timeliness for weekly reports. None of the districts

% of expected facility reports received by 0%

Total reached the target of 80% of reports received on time. Babati Mbulu Nkasi Igunga Masasi Muleba Tunduru Mpwapwa

Dodoma Rural Mwanza Urban Tabora Urban Sumbawanga R. Weekly Monthly District

Figure 1: Completeness of health facility reporting to district Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 4

Infectious Disease Week Ending forms for sending reports to the district level. Lack of standardized 100%

e 90% reporting formats resulted in inconsistency of

tim n 80%

o d 70% reporting between districts.

itte

m 60% b Weekly 50% Monthly

rts su 40%

o 30%

rep 20%

ility c 10%

fa 100%

% 0% .

ural abati rban kasi 90% asasi bulu apwa Total B uleba M N a R Igunga M M anga R pw Tunduru M 80% baw wanza U Tabora Urban Dodom M Sum 70% District 60% Weekly 50% Monthly

40% Figure 3: Timeliness of health facility reporting to 30% 20% district % district reports submitted on time 10%

0% Dodoma Kagera Manyara Mtwara Mwanza Rukwa Ruvuma Tabora Total Examining the performance of all facilities Regions combined over time it was observed that the coverage and timeliness followed similar patterns during the quarter. The highest point for each was reached during Figure 4: Timeliness of district reporting to region the week of October 22, with significant declines In several instances weekly and monthly reports were during the holiday period at the end of the quarter. found at the health facilities but not at the district level, District reporting to the region was more efficient suggesting problems in the reporting chain. Several than facility reporting to the district. The deadlines possible explanations exist: (i) the reports were not for the district reports to the region were mentioned actually sent from the facility, (ii) the reports were to be Thursday for weekly reports and the 15th of the sent with local transport or by other means but never coming month for the monthly reports. On average delivered to the district, (iii) the reports were delivered 47% (range: 1-74%) of expected weekly reports were to the district office but not to the right person on time, while the it was 60% (range: 0-94%) for (particularly possible when the district office and monthly reports. Half of the regions met or exceeded district hospital were co-located), and (iv) the reports the target of 80% timeliness for monthly reports. Our were delivered to the appropriate person at the district findings showed that weekly reporting lags behind in but then lost. There was also difficulty in obtaining most regions, with the exception of Mwanza Urban copies of reports for health facilities that use radio (Figure 4). The results for Mtwara region were so low calls to transmit their reports to the district. Many due primarily to the fact that several reports from the facility staff noted that they had a heavy reporting districts were not available at the regional office; burden complicated by inconsistent requirements among the reports reviewed only one was found to be (HMIS, IDSR, other programmes). For example, the timely. HMIS reports combine pneumonia, bronchitis, and In general, field visits for data collection revealed other respiratory ailments under Acute Respiratory that data management and organization were weak at Infections, while the IDSR report asks for only the district and health facility levels. Most districts pneumonia and severe pneumonia. Different reporting had reports organized into weekly and monthly folders systems use different age categories and some require by year, but these were not always maintained. None reporting by sex. The result is that facility staff must were organized by facility, which could facilitate have a very good system for reviewing registers and monitoring of reporting performance. In some cases tallying their data, or must do it multiple times to meet it took most of the day for all of the required reports the different criteria for different programmes. to be obtained because they were filed in many different places. Different formats were being used Accuracy of reports for weekly and monthly reports and many reports were Standard case definitions were not always used for hand-drawn on notebook paper. Some facilities were recording diagnoses in registers. In many instances, using the old Essential Drug Programme and plasmodiasis was recorded instead of malaria; bloody 5 Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 diarrhoea was recorded instead of bacillary dysentery. include data from the previous three months. Only In addition, a number of uncommon and/or unknown Nkasi district had both types of analysis, but they were abbreviations were found in registers, leading to not current. In fact, Nkasi had trend analysis for all of incorrect tallying and reporting of data. Problems were the weekly reported diseases. All but two of the observed wherein patients appeared to be registered districts (Sumbawanga and Mwanza Urban) had lists more than once. For example, a patient was registered of the top ten diseases in their catchment area. Mbulu in the out-patient department book and also registered district had displayed person analysis for priority in the in-patient department book. Most of the District diseases and three districts (Dodoma Rural, Masasi hospitals were not submitting their weekly and and Mpwapwa) had maps with disease cases marked. monthly reports to the district. There were several At the facility level, 32% of facilities reported cases of reportable diseases found in registers that had doing any type of trend analysis for priority diseases. not been included in monthly health facility reports. However, only 4% had graphs of monthly malaria There was no standard inpatient register available so cases and deaths, representing one facility each in each facility improvised a hand-drawn register using Dodoma , Igunga, Muleba and Sumbawanga districts, a blank record book. Although HMIS Book 1 had and none had long-term trends. The graphs in three of guidance on what to include in the inpatient register, the four facilities contained current data. Listing of there was no standardization among facilities, or even top ten diseases was less common at the facility level, from one page to the next. In addition, registers were available only at 7% of the facilities (representing often incomplete, with information such as date, age, Dodoma, Igunga, Masasi and Mwanza Urban sex, diagnosis, treatment or outcome missing. Some districts). One facility each in Igunga and Muleba health facilities in the districts were found not to be districts had maps with disease cases marked. using the HMIS system at all; a few did not know Health personnel at both the district and regional what the books look like and what is supposed to be levels were asked about their knowledge of IDSR done. Thus data were not recorded in a standard way indicators, whether they had reviewed those indicators and incorrect reports were submitted. This was mainly during the previous three months, and whether they found in hospitals and in private health facilities. had taken any actions as a result of the review. Many of the discrepancies were due to the fact Knowledge of the indicators found in the National that facility reports had been received after the district Guidelines for IDSR was quite weak at both levels. had already submitted its report to the region; thus These indicators include: timeliness and coverage of the tally of cases from reports found at the time of reporting, case fatality rates, proportion of outbreaks data collection was often higher than the number notified to the district within 24 hours, proportion of reported to the region. This highlights the importance outbreaks with laboratory confirmation. Seven of the of having good coverage and timeliness of reporting eight regions reported being familiar with the in order to have an accurate picture of the disease indicators, but only two could provide specific situation. Given that health facilities were not always using the same deadlines for submitting reports, it was examples to support this (Dodoma and Ruvuma). At difficult for districts to compile meaningful reports to the district level, three districts (Mpwapwa, Dodoma send to the regions. Due to this, information received and Muleba) reported knowing the indicators but only was sometimes found to be included in a different one district (Dodoma) provided examples. reporting period, sometimes combined with data for Five regions reported that their RHMTs met in the coming week or month. the previous quarter to review indicators that tell about the performance of the IDSR system, but only Mtwara Use of surveillance data and Ruvuma regions provided evidence to support Analysis of data at the district level was quite weak. this. Both of these regions also took actions based on Five of the twelve districts reported doing any type of their indicator review, including sending letters and trend analysis for IDSR priority diseases on a monthly guidelines to the districts on how to prepare reports, or quarterly basis. Only two districts (Mbulu and notifying districts of poor performance, suggesting Nkasi) stated that they did some type of trend analysis ways to resolve communications problems, and for malaria. WHO/AFRO recommends two specific assuring availability of reporting forms at all districts. types of analysis – tracking of monthly malaria None of the districts met to review their IDSR inpatient cases and deaths, and long-term trend indicators. analysis (i.e. year to year) of malaria, both for children aged less than five years – and that these analyses Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 6

District teams were asked whether they had used October – December 2003 period, half of the districts IDSR data to provide justification for their plans and planned to carry out supervision visits at a rate of one actions, as well as to monitor the impact of their visit per facility per month. Another two districts actions. All of the districts except one (Muleba) stated planned to visit each facility once per quarter. The that they had used data for planning purposes. IDSR remaining two districts planned to visit only half of data used as the basis for (i) introducing fare their facilities during the quarter. On average, districts reimbursement for health workers to bring reports to implemented 33% of their planned supervision visits the district in order to increase coverage (Babati for the previous quarter. The best performing districts district); (ii) information about animal bites was used were Dodoma, Igunga and Tabora. However, the first to order drugs from the Medical Stores Department two of these districts also had the fewest visits planned, (Tunduru); (iii) data on increased diarrhoea cases in proportional to the number of facilities. Among the two wards was used to develop a programme for toilet districts that planned monthly visits, Babati and Mbulu construction (Masasi); (iv) an increased number of were able to implement the most, (about 60%). Most malaria cases led to the distribution and promotion of of the districts that planned quarterly supervision visits insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) (Tabora). All but one had generally high implementation rates. In four of of the districts that had used data for planning also the districts documentation on how many supervision stated that they had used data for monitoring their visits had been carried out was poor or not available. activities, either in the previous quarter (4 districts) Six of the districts had planned meetings that or the past year. Igunga had used data for planning reported on or reviewed IDSR activities. All of these but not monitoring. meetings were held, and three other districts also held Planning and implementation of IDSR activities meetings that had not been included in their CCHPs. A key measure of the institutionalization and It was observed, during discussion that most of the sustainability of IDSR is whether related activities and CHMT members had a timetable of monthly CHMT their associated costs are included in district plans and meeting, while some districts held quarterly meetings budgets. If an activity is not documented in the district specifically to discuss IDSR and Mwanza held public plan and sufficient funding allocated, it is not likely meetings on the control of waterborne diseases. to occur. As part of the district interview, participants Babati, Muleba and Tabora districts did not hold any were asked about whether their district had planned meeting in the previous quarter at which IDSR for any of the following activities: (i) supervision visits activities were discussed. to health facilities, (ii) meetings to review or report Ten of the districts had planned training related to on IDSR activities, (iii) IDSR training, and (iv) IDSR for the previous year and carried out their plans. prevention activities of priority infectious diseases. Examples of training topics included data collection Council Comprehensive Health Plan (CCHP) and other documented sources (such as supervision for infectious disease and reporting, use of line lists schedules or activity calendars) were reviewed to and measles outbreak reporting (Mwanza), disease verify the information. Districts were also asked about surveillance and data management (Igunga), infectious their implementation of planned activities. Three of disease prevention (Nkasi) and malaria case the districts (Dodoma, Igunga and Mpwapwa) were management (Tabora). able to meet the criteria for planning and implementing All of the districts had included activities to all of the suggested activities, including prevent priority infectious diseases in their 2003 implementation of 80% or more of planned CCHP, and all but one district (Masasi) carried out supervision visits. All other districts met three or four prevention activities during the previous quarter. These of the criteria. included promotion of insecticide-treated nets, All of the districts had included supervision visits vaccination campaigns and environmental sanitation to their health facilities in their CCHPs. For the activities. 7 Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1

Table1: The percentage of facility with availability of tools and job aids by district

Babati

Dodoma

Igunga

Masasi

Mbulu

Mpwapwa

Muleba

Mwanza

Nkasi

Sumbawanga

Tabora

Tunduru

Total (% of Total facilities with each tool) Criteria Register 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 CIF —AFP 38 50 14 10 14 22 33 8 0 0 0 13 17 CIF — NNT 50 67 0 10 14 22 33 8 29 8 0 50 24 CIF — Measles 25 50 14 10 14 22 33 8 0 0 0 38 18 CIF — Generic 25 25 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 Weekly forms 100 67 43 30 71 89 83 23 100 92 75 38 65 Monthly forms 75 92 57 80 71 100 67 38 86 100 50 88 76 Standard case definitions 75 83 100 40 71 89 83 77 71 92 88 88 79 Proportion of expected tools available for each district 61 67 41 35 45 56 54 33 48 49 39 53 48 Key: CIF = Case investigation form; AFP= acute flaccid paralysis; NNT = Neonatal Tenanus

Availability of tools/job aids for IDSR during the previous quarter: receipt of technical The essential tools and job aids include the facility information or updates on policies that related to register, case investigation forms (disease-specific and infectious disease reporting, investigation or response generic), weekly and monthly reporting forms, and (such as a technical bulletin on cholera specimen standard case definitions. Facility staffs were asked if collection procedures or new reporting deadlines); they had each of these items, and were asked to show receipt of reports showing data for districts/facilities them to the data collectors in order to receive credit. combined or comparing districts/facilities; receipt of Overall, less than 2% of health facilities had all of the information about the quality of weekly and monthly tools available, while 22% had more than half of the surveillance reports submitted; and receipt of 8 tools. On average, facilities had four of the tools assistance in carrying out IDSR activities (such as available. These were most likely to be the register, instruction on properly completing a form during a weekly and monthly reporting forms, and standard supervision visit). case definitions (Table 1). All of the different case The regions were asked about whether they had investigation forms were consistently in short supply. received feedback from the Ministry of Health on Only 7% of the facilities had the generic case IDSR issues. Among the eight regions, only three investigation form, which covers several diseases. received feedback on new policy and guidelines, one There was no significant variability among the districts region received aggregated data, four received in terms of the expected proportion of tools that were feedback on quality of IDSR reports and two received actually available, with a low of 35% in Masasi and a assistance on how to conduct IDSR tasks. Manyara high of 67% in Dodoma Rural. However, there was a Region did not report receiving any type of feedback significant difference between the availability of the from the Ministry of Health, while Mtwara, Mwanza forms per district (P <0.0001). There was notable and Tabora regions received two types of feedback. variability among facilities within some districts. Districts received feedback on different criteria during the October– December period. While five of Feedback the districts reported receiving more than two types This exercise examined feedback on reports at three of feedback, only one district (Nkasi) received all four. levels – from the Ministry of Health to the region, Nkasi and Sumbawanga are in the same region from the region to the district, and from the district to (Rukwa), but Sumbawanga did not report receiving the health facility – always from the receiver’s point any updates or assistance with IDSR tasks. Districts of view. Four criteria were used to evaluate feedback Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 8 in Kagera, Manyara and Mwanza regions did not Mboera et al., 2001a,b; Mboera et al., 2004; Mghamba receive any of the specified feedback during the et al., 2004). period. About half of the districts responded that they Completeness and timeliness are key indicators had received feedback regarding the quality of their of reporting performance. These are defined as the surveillance reports and assistance in carrying out their proportion of expected reports received IDSR responsibilities. Feedback of aggregated or (completeness), and the proportion of expected reports comparative data was reported by only four districts. received on time (timeliness). In this study, reports Some examples of feedback received included: were considered late if they had not been received by Policies/technical updates; aggregated/comparative the established deadline. Reports received after the data; quality of reports; and assistance with IDSR deadlines and those for which timeliness could not be responsibilities. assessed were grouped together. Only when a district Feedback from districts to health facilities was has received reports from all facilities on the expected significantly weaker than feedback from regions to date can it be confident about knowing the true disease districts. Overall, 40% of health facilities interviewed situation and make decisions accordingly. Poor reported that they did not receive any type of feedback timeliness in reporting from health facilities to the (as defined above) during the preceding quarter; this respective district has been reported in a previous varied from a low of 8% in Dodoma Rural to a high study by Nsubuga et al. (2002). Poor timeliness of 92% in Mwanza. No facilities received all four types reporting in Tanzania has been attributed to lack of of feedback, while one-third of health facilities adequate information exchange facilities and systems received one type of feedback. Approximately 30% that facilitate rapid access to information available at of facilities received either technical/policy updates one level or both levels of health delivery system. For or assistance from the district, while only 6.5% instance, reporting between facility and district levels received aggregated or compiled data. Mpwapwa is constrained by the lack of effective and efficient performed the best, providing at least two type of means of communication (Kajeguka & Mboera, 2003; feedback to 22% of its facilities. Mboera, 2004; Mboera et al., 2005). There is need to Feedback to different facilities within a district emphasize the use of information communication was often variable. For example, the Babati District technology to improve surveillance reporting in the Hospital reported having received three types of country. Moreover, health workers should be involved feedback, while all but one of the other seven facilities in a participatory manner to improve their timely interviewed reported zero. The case is similar for reporting improvising available means of Masasi, Mbulu, and Igunga districts. Nkasi had communication as shown in a recent study in Dodoma, designed a specific form for providing feedback to all Tanzania (Mboera et al., 2005). health facilities on a quarterly basis. This consisted In several instances weekly and monthly reports of a list of all health facilities and months (January to were found at the health facilities but not at the district December). The forms were found at health facilities level, suggesting problems in the reporting chain. during the data collectors’ visits. Several possible explanations exist: (i) the reports were not actually sent from the facility; (ii) the reports were Discussion sent with local transport or by other means but never delivered to the district; (iii) the reports were delivered IDSR has been adopted as a national strategy in to the district office but not to the right person Tanzania since 1998, but it has not been effectively (particularly possible when the district office and rolled out in most of the country. As the results and district hospital were co-located), and; (iv) the reports observations of this study show, many of the key tasks were delivered to the appropriate person at the district in the strategy are not being carried out as planned, but then lost. particularly at the lower levels of the health system. Lack of uniformity in recording at health facilities Data quality is important, beginning at the level where in the districts under study is likely to be due to lack it is generated. If data is not valid and reliable at this of standard case definitions. A similar situation has level, neither is anything at the higher levels. Weekly been reported in recent years by other workers in reporting is weak, with some districts not using this Tanzania. For instance, in assessing the structure and system at all. Monthly reporting performance is better, performance for five infectious disease surveillance perhaps due to the overlap with periods of salary systems in Tanzania (Nsubuga et al., 2002) found out collection. Similar findings have been reported by that standardized case definitions were used for only other workers in Tanzania (Nsubuga et al., 2002; 3 of 21 infectious diseases. In another study, it has 9 Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 been reported that health workers rely mostly on their utilization of data (Mwangu & Otito, 2000). Nsubuga clinical skills rather than applying standard case et al (2002) also found that although data analysis was definition leading to inconsistent recording diagnoses carried out in all five surveillance systems, incidence (Franco et al., 2003; Mghamba et al. (2004). Standard and prevalence were rarely calculated and moreover case definition job aids are important tools with regard trends in disease outbreaks were also seldom tracked. to proper detection of cases. Improper detection of This has an implication with regard to planning and cases gives insufficient and unreliable tracking of taking action using evidence based information and diseases. in this case the use of analysed data. With regard to data analysis and interpretation, it There is a problem of centralization of needs to be done at all levels of disease surveillance responsibilities at some health facilities. This is right from community to national and international particularly evident when the in-charge is away and levels. The kind of analysis will vary according to the remaining staffs are not aware of responsibilities requirements and what can be done at that particular related to IDSR (such as completing appropriate level. At whatever level, data are normally analysed forms/reports at the appropriate time). Multiple and by time, place and person. Time analysis enables the diverse reporting requirements pose a problem for comparison of cases reported for the current time health workers. An integration of these programmes (week/month/year) with the number received in the and systems to reduce the burden of tasks assigned, previous time (week/month/year). This enables the which are sometimes repeated will likely to solve some detection of any abrupt or long-term changes in disease of these problems. occurrence. Low utilisation of surveillance data has District and facility personnel were very interested been associated with understaffing, lack of skills and in receiving immediate feedback about their low motivation by health workers (Mwangu & Otito, performance, and numerous problem-solving 2000). It has been emphasised that epidemiological discussions were held. The use of case investigation data analysis and interpretation need to be done at all forms was better for vaccine-preventable diseases, levels (community, facility, district, national) of likely due to the strong Expanded Program on disease surveillance (Mghamba et al., 2004). Immunization (EPI) in most districts. The unit of Feedback and supervision have also been found Reproductive and Child Health use these forms under to be poor in this study. In a previous study, only EPI, which are Measles, Polio and Neonatal tetanus. 42% of the health facility in Tanzania received This is done and coordinated by programme and there supervision or feedback (Nsubuga et al., 2002). is a specific focal person that is why most of the filled Feedback has been singled out as one of the most forms found were of these diseases. important tool for developing health workers and Data analysis at both district and facility levels is improving their performance. A data management tool weak. At health facility, completion of HMIS book 2 (District Analysis Book) has been incorporated in the was found to be a great step on the process of analysis. current IDSR system (Mghamba et al., 2004). In a study in Urban District it was observed In general, data management and organization that 44.5% of the health workers were not utilising were weak at the district and facility levels. Data the information (including surveillance) collected management, and particularly file organization, is a through HMIS (Kagonji, 2005). This means that problem at both facility and district levels. This is a there’s close relationship between practice of health barrier to seeing the true picture of reporting workers and information utilization, and hence performance. Related to this is the mechanism for practice of health workers affects information submitting reports, particularly the issue of reports utilization. Creation of culture of using information submitted by radio-call not being individually and motivation of health worker are very important documented. Lack of standardization of reporting aspect to strengthening this activity. forms makes it difficult to compile data. It is important In conclusion, it is important that the capacities that the districts have a specific person for receiving of health workers at all levels to implement IDSR are and sending of reports, set specific time for receiving strengthened if we are to have a sustainable and proper documentation at district and facility level. implementation of disease surveillance in Tanzania. Sentinel centres for collection of reports from remote Unfortunately, after 7 years since the adoption of the health facilities can be made to facilitate reporting as IDSR strategy by Tanzania, there is limited already being practised in Dodoma (Mboera et al., quantitative evidence that suggests that the IDSR 2005). The understaffing, lack of skills by some health intervention has led to improvements in perceived workers and motivation was found to explain the low Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1 10 availability of quality data, capacity to perform data response at district level in Tanzania. Tanzania analysis, motivation to perform data analysis, Health Research Bulletin 5, 61-67. motivation to use analyzed data, and perceived value Mboera, L.E.G. (2004) Disease surveillance in of analyzed data (Eisele et al., 2006). The existing Tanzania: an integrated approach in the barriers (including overburdened health facility staff; management and control of communicable poor communication; poor laboratory capacity; poor diseases. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Joint incentives; poor organizational capacity; and Scientific Conference of the National Institute insufficient financial resources) to an effective IDSR for Medical Research, Arusha International need to be immediately addressed. Conference Centre, Arusha, Tanzania, March 15- 17, 2004. Acknowledgements Mboera, L.E.G., Rumisha, S.F. & Kitua, A.Y. (2001a) Strategic approach for strengthening national and The authors want to particularly thank all the members regional disease surveillance system: The East of the Council and Regional Health Management African example. Tanzania Health Research Teams in the regions and districts of Babati and Mbulu Bulletin 3 (2), 6-9. (Manyara), Dodoma Rural and Mpwapwa (Dodoma), Mboera, L.E.G., Rumisha, S.F., Magesa, S.M. & Igunga and Tabora Urban (Tabora), Nkasi and Kitua, A.Y. (2001b) Utilisation of Health Sumbawanga Rural (Rukwa), Masasi (Mtwara), Management Information System in disease Tunduru (Ruvuma), Mwanza Urban (Mwanza) and surveillance in Tanzania. Tanzania Health Muleba (Kagera) for their support. The authors are Research Bulletin 3 (2), 15-18. grateful to Mtumwa Bakari, Akili Kalinga, Levina Mboera, L.E.G., Rumisha, S.F., Mwanemile, E.J., Lema, Benjamin Mayala, Jonathan Mcharo, Godwin Mziwanda, E. & Mmbuji, P. (2005) Enhancing Nkya, Dominick Shauri and Joseph Swila for their disease surveillance reporting using public excellent field assistance. Rogers Rindeni and Fagason transport in Dodoma District, central Tanzania. Mduma are thanked for their assistance in data entry. Tanzania Health Research Bulletin 7, 201-205. This work received financial assistance from USAID- Mboera, L.E.G., Rumisha, S.F., Senkoro, K.P., Tanzania and USAID-Global Bureau/Office of Health, Kamugisha, M.L. & Kitua, A.Y. (2004) East Infectious Diseases and Nutrition. African Integrated Disease Surveillance Network 2001-2004. Technical Report submitted to the References Rockefeller Foundation, November 2004. Eisele, T., Hotchkiss, D., Bingham, A., Silvestre, E., National Institute for Medical Research, Dar es Gueye, D., Banke, K., Mmbuji, P. & Mboera, Salaam, Tanzania L.E.G. (2006) Assessing the Effectiveness of an Mghamba, J.M., Mboera, L.E.G., Krekamoo, W., Intervention Package for Improving Analysis and Senkoro, K.P., Rumisha, S.F., Shayo, E.H. & Response of the Infectious Disease Surveillance Mmbuji, P. (2004) Challenges of implementing System in Tanzania. Bethesda, MD: The Partners Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response for Health Reformsplus Project, Abt Associates strategy using the current Health Management Inc. Information System in Tanzania. Tanzania Franco, L.M., Fields, R., Mmbuji, P.K.L., Posner, S., Health Research Bulletin 6, 57-63. Mboera, L.E.G., Jimmerson, A., Senkoro, K.P., Mwangu, M.A. & Otito, C.K. (2000). HMIS Rumisha, S.F., Shayo, E.H. & Mwami, J.A. implementation at the district level in the (2003) Situation Analysis of Infectious Disease context of the Health Sector Reforms: Surveillance in two Districts in Tanzania, 2002. Challenges and future prospects. Proceedings Bethesda, MD: The Partners for Health of the 18th Annual Scientific Conference of the Reformsplus Project, Abt Associates Inc. Tanzania Public Health Association, Kajeguka, A.C. & Mboera, L.E.G. (2003) Information November 22-25, 1999, Dodoma, Tanzania. and communication technology: options for Pp 111-119. strengthening integrated disease surveillance and 11 Tanzania Health Research Bulletin (2007), Vol. 9, No. 1

Nsubuga, P., Eseko, N., Wuhib, T., Ndayimirije, N., Rumisha, S.F., Mboera, L.E.G. Kamugisha, M.L., Chungong, S. & McNabb, S. (2002) Structure Kalumuna, A., Amri, M. & Kitua, A.Y. (2003) and performance of infectious disease Pattern and distribution of communicable surveillance and response, United Republic diseases in border districts of Bukoba and of Tanzania, 1998. Bulletin of the World Tanga, Tanzania. Tanzania Health Research Health Organization 80, 196-202. Bulletin 5, 19-23.