Evaluation of public health surveillance system performance in Dangila district, Northwest Ethiopia: a concurrent embedded mixed quantitative/qualitative facility-based cross-sectional study

Abstract

Abstract Background Evaluation of a surveillance system should be conducted on regular bases to ensure that the system is working as envisioned or not. Therefore, we evaluated Dangila district’s public health surveillance system performance in line with its objectives. Methods In August 2017, a concurrent embedded mixed quantitative/qualitative, facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Dangila district among 12 health facilities/sites. The qualitative part involved 12 purposively selected key stakeholders interview. A semi-structured questionnaire adapted from updated CDC guideline for evaluating public health surveillance system was used for data collection through face to face interview and record review. The major qualitative findings were narrated and summarized based on thematic areas to supplement the quantitative findings. The quantitative findings were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2007. Results All necessary surveillance guidelines, registers and reporting formats were distributed adequately to health facilities. Only the district health office has Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP), but not supported by the budget required to respond in case an emergency occurred. There were no regular data analysis and interpretations in terms of time, place and person. Weekly report completeness and timeliness were 100 and 94.6% respectively. The information collected was considered relevant by its users to detect outbreaks early with high acceptability. All stakeholders agreed that the system is simple, easy to understand, representative and can accommodate modifications. Written feedbacks were not obtained in all health facilities. The supervision checklist obtained in the district was not adequate to assess surveillance activities in detail. The calculated positive predictive value for malaria was 11%. Conclusions The surveillance system was simple, useful, flexible, acceptable and representative. Report completeness and timelines were above the national and international targets. However, the overall implementation of the system in the district was not satisfactory to achieve the intended objective of surveillance for public health action due to the lack of regular data analysis and feedback dissemination. To create a well-performing surveillance system, regular supervision and epidemiologically analyzed and interpreted feedback system is mandatory.