Assessment of the core and support functions of the Integrated Disease Surveillance system in Maharashtra, India

BMC Public Health

Michael Marx³  Pradip Awate²  Sapna Valsa¹  Nutan Ashtekar²  Savita Shardul²  Sharvari Shukla⁴  Revati K Phalkey³ 

[1] Chest Research Foundation, Pune, Maharashtra, India;State Surveillance Office, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Pune, Maharashtra, India;Institute of Public Health (Former Department of Tropical Hygiene and Public Health) Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany D-69120;Centre for Modelling and Simulation, University of Pune, Pune, Maharashtra, India

关键词: India;    Maharashtra;    Core and support surveillance functions;    Assessment;    Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR);   

Others  :  1162107
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-575

 received in 2012-08-30, accepted in 2013-05-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Monitoring the progress of the Integrated Disease Surveillance (IDS) strategy is an important component to ensure its sustainability in the state of Maharashtra in India. The purpose of the study was to document the baseline performance of the system on its core and support functions and to understand the challenges for its transition from an externally funded “project” to a state owned surveillance “program”.

Methods

Multi-centre, retrospective cross-sectional evaluation study to assess the structure, core and support surveillance functions using modified WHO generic questionnaires. All 34 districts in the state and randomly identified 46 facilities and 25 labs were included in the study.

Results

Case definitions were rarely used at the periphery. Limited laboratory capacity at all levels compromised case and outbreak confirmation. Only 53% districts could confirm all priority diseases. Stool sample processing was the weakest at the periphery. Availability of transport media, trained staff, and rapid diagnostic tests were main challenges at the periphery. Data analysis was weak at both district and facility levels. Outbreak thresholds were better understood at facility level (59%) than at the district (18%). None of the outbreak indicator targets were met and submission of final outbreak report was the weakest. Feedback and training was significantly better (p < 0.0001) at district level (65%; 76%) than at facility level (15%; 37%). Supervision was better at the facility level (37%) than at district (18%) and so were coordination, communication and logistic resources. Contractual part time positions, administrative delays in recruitment, and vacancies (30%) were main human resource issues that hampered system performance.

Conclusions

Significant progress has been made in the core and support surveillance functions in Maharashtra, however some challenges exist. Support functions (laboratory, transport and communication equipment, training, supervision, human and other resources) are particularly weak at the district level. Structural integration and establishing permanent state and district surveillance officer positions will ensure leadership; improve performance; support continuity; and offer sustainability to the program. Institutionalizing the integrated disease surveillance strategy through skills based personnel development and infrastructure strengthening at district levels is the only way to avoid it from ending up isolated! Improving surveillance quality should be the next on agenda for the state.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Phalkey et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Thacker S, Berkelman R: Public Health Surveillance in the United States. Epidemiol Rev 1988, 10:164-190.
• [2]Nsubuga P, Nwanyanwu O, Nkengasong JN, Mukanga D, Trostle M: Strengthening public health surveillance and response using the health systems strengthening agenda in developing countries. BMC Publ Health 2010, 10(1):S5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]M’ikanatha N, Lynfield R, Julian K, Van Beneden C, De Valk H: Chapter 1: Infectious Disease Surveillance: A Cornerstone for Prevention and Control. In Infectious Disease Surveillance. Edited by M'ikanatha N, Lynfield R, Van Beneden C, De Valk H, Malden MA. Wiley-Blackwell; 2007.
• [4]Nigeria MOH: IDSR in West Africa- Bridging the Gaps. Edited by Science TNAo. Lagos: West African Book Publishers Limited; 2010.
• [5]Mahendradhata Y, Moerman F: Integration and disease control: notes from the Prince Leopold Institute of Tropical Medicine Colloquium 2002. Trop Med Int Health 2004, 9(6):A5-10.
• [6]Franco LM, Setzer J, Banke KK: Improving performance of IDSR at district and facility levels: Experiences in Tanzania and Ghana in making IDSR operational. 2006.
• [7]Lukwago L, Nanyunja M, Ndayimirije N, Wamala J, Malimbo M, Mbabazi W, Gasasira A, Nabukenya IN, Musenero M, Alemu W, et al.: The implementation of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in Uganda: a review of progress and challenges between 2001 and 2007. Health Policy Plan 2012.
• [8]Nsubuga P, Eseko N, Tadesse W, Ndayimirije N, Stella C, McNabb S: Structure and performance of infectious disease surveillance and response, United Republic of Tanzania, 1998. Bull World Health Organ 2002, 80(3):196-203.
• [9]Calain P: From the field side of the binoculars: a different view on global public health surveillance. Health Policy Plan 2007, 22(1):13-20.
• [10]John TJ, Dandona L, Sharma VP, Kakkar M: Continuing challenge of infectious diseases in India. Lancet 2011, 377(9761):252-269.
• [11]WHO: An integrated approach to communicable disease surveillance. Epidemiological Bulletin, PAHO 2000, 21(1):1-16. Available at http://www1.paho.org/english/dd/ais/EB_v21n1.pdf webcite
• [12]Nsubuga P, White M, Thacker SB, Anderson M, Blount S, Broome C, Chiller T, Espitia V, Imtiaz R, Sosin D, et al.: Chapter 53: Public health surveillance: A tool for targeting and monitoring interventions. In Disease Control Priorities Project Edited by Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans E, Jha P, Mills A, Musgrove P. 2006. Available at http://files.dcp2.org/pdf/DCP/DCP53.pdf webcite
• [13]WHO AFRO: Technical guidelines for integrated disease surveillance and response in the African region. Harare: Division of Communicable Disease Prevention and Control, World Health Organization: Regional Office for Africa; 2001. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/dphswd/idsr/tools/default.html webcite
• [14]WHO SEARO: Regional strategic plan for integrated disease surveillance 2002–2010. New Delhi: The World Health Organization, Regional Office for South East Asia; 2003. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/searo/2003/SEA_CD_130.pdf webcite
• [15]Kasolo F, Roungou JB, Perry H: Technical Guidelines for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in the African Region. Atlanta and Brazzaville: Regional Office for Africa Centre for Global Health Disease Prevention and Control, World Health Organization Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and Division of Public Health Systems and Cluster Workforce Development, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. Available at http://www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/dpc/integrated-disease-surveillance.html webcite
• [16]Objectives of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR).
• [17]CDC: Assessment of Country-Level Progress for Implementing Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR). In Global Health - Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012.
• [18]Phalkey R: Problems and prospects for Intergrated Disease Surveillance in India: A case study of Maharashtra state. University of Heidelberg, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine; 2012.
• [19]WHO SEARO: Joint evaluation of a specific intercountry programme- multidisease surveillance and response. Geneva: The World Health Organization; 2003. [Volume SEA/RC56/14]
• [20]Zaidi A, Awasthi S, DeSilva HJ: Burden of infectious diseases in South Asia. BMJ 2004, 328:811-815.
• [21]Taylor D: The Burden of non-communicable diseases in India. Hamilton ON: The Cameron Institute; 2010.
• [22]MOHFW: Maharashtra State Report: Status on 15.05.2009. Report of the Ministry of Health Family Welfare Mumbai: State Government of Maharashtra; 2009. http://www.nrhm.maharashtra.gov.in/Default.aspx webcite
• [23]GOI: Annual report to the people on health (September 2010). New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2010. [Department of Health and Family Welfare] Available at http://mohfw.nic.in/WriteReadData/l892s/9457038092AnnualReporthealth.pdf webcite
• [24]Kant L: Combating emerging infectious diseases in India: Orchestrating a symphony. J Biosci 2008, 33(4):425-427.
• [25]MOH India: Working group on communicable diseases for 12th five year plan: Report 30-07-2011. 2011.
• [26]GOI: Integrated Disease Surveillance Project: Operations manual for district surveillance unit. New Delhi: National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2002.
• [27]Kant L, Krishnan SK: Information and communication technology in disease surveillance, India: a case study. BMC Publ Health 2010, 10(Suppl 1):S11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]MOH India: Integrated Disease Surveillance Project: Project Implementation Plan. New Delhi: Department of Health, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2004. Available at http://www.idsp.nic.in/ webcite
• [29]MOHFW: Maharashtra State Report: Status on 15.05.2009. Edited by Ministry of health and Family Welfare Ms. Ministry of health and Family Welfare, Mumbai: State Government of Maharashtra; 2009. http://www.nrhm.maharashtra.gov.in/Default.aspx webcite
• [30]WHO: Protocol for the assessment of national communicable disease surveillance and response systems: Guidelines for assessment teams. Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, The World Health Organization; 2001:1-121. Available at http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s16333e/s16333e.pdf webcite
• [31]WHO: Communicable disease surveillance and response: Guide to monitoring and evaluating. Lyon: Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, The World Health Organization; 2006. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_CDS_EPR_LYO_2006_2_eng.pdf webcite
• [32]CDC: Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: Recommendations from the guidelines working group. In MMWR. Volume 50. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001:1-35.
• [33]Framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks: recommendations from the CDC Working Group. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15129191 webcite
• [34]WHO: Overview of the WHO framework for monitoring and evaluating surveillance and response systems for communicable diseases. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2004, 36:322-326.
• [35]Mghamba JM, Mboera LEG, Krekamboo W, Senkoro KP, Rumisha SF, Shayo EH, Mmbuji P: Challenges of implementing an Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response strategy using the current Health Management Information System in Tanzania. Tanzania Health Bulletin 2004, 6(2):57-63.
• [36]CDC: Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response, Ghana: Policy Brief. Atlanta: Centres for Disease Control; 2003.
• [37]Dairo MD, Bamidele JO, Adebimpe WO: Disease surveillance and reporting in two south-western states in Nigeria: Logistic challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology 2010, 2(6):125-129.
• [38]Gueye D, Banke KK, Mmbuji P: Follow- up monitoring and evaluation of integrated disease surveillance and response in Tanzania. 2006.
• [39]Mozambique MOH: Assessment of Epidemiological Disease Surveillance System in Mozambique. Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization; 2006.
• [40]WHO, CDC, USAID, SARA, UNFIP: The implementation of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in the African and Eastern Mediterranean Regions: Synthesis report. World Health Organization, Centres for Disease Control, United States Agency for International Development, United Nations Fund for International Partnerships and SARA; 2003.
• [41]MOH Uganda: integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR): Monitoring and evaluation report after four year of systematic planning and implementation, October 2004. Uganda Ministry of Health, Makrere University Institute of Public Health, World Health Organization country office for Uganda, World Health Organization regional office for Africa, Division of International Health Centres for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; 2004.
• [42]Rumisha SF, Mboera LE, Senkoro KP, Gueye D, Mmbuji PK: Monitoring and evaluation of integrated disease surveillance and response in selected districts in Tanzania. Tanzan Health Res Bull 2007, 9(1):1-11.
• [43]CDC: Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response, Ethiopia: Policy Brief. Atlanta: Centres for Disease Control; 2003.
• [44]QHP, GHZ: Facility baseline assessment of regional hospitals and facilities in 28 target districts in seven regions of Ghana. Accra: Quality Health Partners and Ghana Health Services; 2005.
• [45]Jacob John T: India: Towards Universal Coverege1: continuing challenge of infectious diseases in India. Lancet 2011, 377(9761):252-269.
• [46]MOH Ethiopia: Evaluation report of the implementation of the 2000–2004 Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) initiative in Ethiopia. Disease, Prevention Control Department, Family Health Department Ministry of Health, Ethiopia; 2005.
• [47]Murhekar MV, Bitragunta S: Persistence of diphtheria in India. Indian J Community Med 2011, 36(2):164-165.
• [48]Malawi MOH: Documentation of performance of Integrated Diseases Surveillance and Response in Malawi. Malawi Government and the World Health Organization; 2006.
• [49]Eritrea MOH: Review report of IDSR implementation in Eritrea. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; 2004.
• [50]Lesotho MOH: Implementation of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response in Lesotho. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and World Health Organization; 2004.
• [51]Mboera LE, Rumisha SF, Mwanemile EJ, Mziwanda E, Mmbuji PK: Enhancing disease surveillance reporting using public transport in Dodoma District, Central Tanzania. Tanzan Health Res Bull 2005, 7(3):201-205.
• [52]NRHM: Report of the National Rural Health Mission: Status Report Maharashtra. Ministry of health and Family Welfare Ms. Mumbai: State Government of Maharashtra; 2009.
• [53]GOI: Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS) for Primary Health care Centres (PHC): Revised guidelines 2010. New Delhi: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India; 2010:1-7.
• [54]Abubakar A: Assessment of Integrated Disease Surveillance and response (IDSR) implementation in selected LGA's in Kaduna state. Ahmadu Bello University, Post Graduate School; 2010.
• [55]Gueye D, Senkoro KP, Rumisha SF: Baseline monitoring and evaluation of integrated disease surveillance and response in Tanzania.
• [56]Quality Health Partners and Ghana Health Service: Facility Baseline Assessment of Regional Hospitals and Facilities in 28 Target Districts in Seven Regions of Ghana. Partners QH. Accra; 2005. Available at http://www.ghanaqhp.org/fileadmin/user_upload/QHP/Facility_Baseline_Assessment_FINALREPORT.pdf webcite
• [57]Sathyanarayana : An evaluation of Integrated Disease Surveillance Project (IDSP); Bellary Unit, Karnataka, India. District Surveillance Unit, Bellary: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Karnataka state; 2010.
• [58]CDC: Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response, Burkina Faso: Policy Brief. Atlanta: Centres for Disease Control; 2003.
• [59]Sow I, Alemu W, Nanyunja M, Duale S, Perry HN, Gaturuku P: Trained district health personnel and the performance of integrated disease surveillance in the WHO African region. East Afr J Public Health 2010, 7(1):16-19.
• [60]Pond B, El Sakka H, Wamala J, Lukwago L: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response Project. USAID and Management Systems International; 2011.
• [61]Mboera LE, Rumisha D, Kitua AY: Strategic approaches for strengthening national and regional disease surveillance systems: The East African experience. Tanzan Health Res Bull 2001., 3(2) Available at http://ajol.info/index.php/thrb/article/viewFile/14211/12642 webcite
• [62]Buckeridge DL: Outbreak detection through automated surveillance: a review of the determinants of detection. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40(4):370-379.
• [63]CDC: Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response, Uganda: Policy Brief. Atlanta: Centres for Disease Control; 2003.
• [64]Sudan MOH: Southern Sudan Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response assessment report. Ministry of Health, Government of Southern Sudan; 2007.
• [65]Somda ZC, Meltzer MI, Perry HN, Messonnier NE, Abdulmumini U, Mebrahtu G, Sacko M, Toure K, Ki SO, Okorosobo T, et al.: Cost analysis of an integrated disease surveillance and response system: case of Burkina Faso, Eritrea, and Mali. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009, 7:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [66]Alfred D: Dirty data: Disease surveillance in Arua district. Uganda Health Policy and Development 2005, 3(1):54-67.
• [67]Nsubuga P, Brown WG, Groseclose SL, Ahadzie L, Talisuna AO, Mmbuji P, Tshimanga M, Midzi S, Wurapa F, Bazeyo W, et al.: Implementing Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response: Four African countries' experience, 1998–2005. Glob Public Health 2010, 5(4):364-380.
• [68]GOI: Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS) for Sub-Centres: Revised guidelines 2010. Edited by Services DGoH. New Delhi: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India; 2010:3-5.
• [69]Al- Jawadi A, Al- Neami M: Assessment of the infectious disease surveillance system in Mosul, Iraq. Dohuk Medical Journal 2008, 2(1):127-138.
• [70]CDC: Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response, Mali: Policy Brief. Atlanta: Centres for Disease Control; 2003.
• [71]Sahal N, Reintjes R, Aro AR: Review article: communicable diseases surveillance lessons learned from developed and developing countries: literature review. Scand J Public Health 2009, 37(2):187-200.