The science of deliveryUse of administrative data in Health Result
Innovation Trust Fund (HRITF) portfolio
Ha Thi Hong Nguyen | Cape Town, 2014
What are administrative data?
• Data on payment to facilities based on verified performance
– Can compare with reported data– Typically only available in contracted facilities
• Data reported in the HMIS system
– Can be available for control facilities• Individual patient records
– Can look at health outcomes and processes of care– Rarely available in many HRITF countries
• HRITF mostly works with the first 2 categories, and generally calls them operation data
The HRITF OP data portfolio Country Start date Program areas Catchment population
Benin Mar 2012 8 districts 2.2 million (22%)
Burkina Faso* Dec 2011 3 districts 813 thousand (5%)
Burundi Mar 2010 Countrywide 9.8 million (100%)
Cameroon* Littoral: Apr 20113 other: Jul 2012
4 regions 2.8 million (13%)
Kenya* Dec 2011 1 sub-county 200 thousand (0.5%)
Nigeria* Dec 2011 3 LGAs 416 thousand (0.2%)
Zambia Apr 2012 11 districts 1.5 million (11%)
Zimbabwe Mar 2012 18 districts 4.2 million (30%)
Afghanistan April 2009 11 provinces 9.1 million (33%)
Laos Mar 2013 5 provinces 2.2 million (33%)
Sierra Leone Oct 2010 Countrywide 5.9 million (100%)
Total population is for 2012 (WDI)Note several programs have expanded but OP data are not yet available
3
*Not include recently scaling up areas
Why operational data? • To monitor programs’ progress as basis for further inquiry
and mid-course corrections
– Identifying high and low performing indicators– Monitoring where money is spent– Detecting outliers – Comparing with control areas and watching for
unintended consequences – Improving implementation design
• To promote transparency and hold providers accountable for results
• To evaluate the impact of the program
Monitoring program progress to facilitate further inquiries
4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12011 2012 2013 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
AfghanistanBeninNigeriaZambiaZimbabwe
%
Estimated coverage of institutional/SBA deliveries
Identifying high and low performance
Zambia: change between Q2 1012 and Q1 2014 in QOC components
Curative Care
ANC
FP
EPI
Delivery Room
HIV
Supply Management
General Management
HMIS
Community Participation
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q2 2012
Curative Care
ANC
FP
EPI
Delivery Room
HIV
Supply Management
General Management
HMIS
Community Participation
0
20
40
60
80
100
Q1 2014
Monitoring where money is spent on
Kenya
Zambia
Nigeria
Burkina Faso
Benin
Zimbabwe
Burundi
Cameroon
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
Share of RBF payment for service delivery that went to health center and lower level
Monitoring where money is spent on
OP >511%
OP <=515%
Inst. De-
liver-ies
17%
Others57%Burundi
Zambia
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
OP contact6%
Inst. De-liveries
35%
FP40%
Others18%
OP contact35%
Inst. De-liveries
15%
FP21%
Others29%
OPC21%
Hosp.
days 15%
VCT12%
Others52%
Figures reported are averages of all quarters to date
8
Three services absorbing largest share of payment
Detecting outliers
4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12011 2012 2013 2014
0
320
640
960
1280
1600
Nigeria: Performance on institutional deliveries by LGA
Adamawa
Ondo
Nasarawa
Assessing relative progress and watching out for negative spillover
Afghanistan: number of SBA deliveries in treatment and control facilities
Zimbabwe: Diarrhea cases among age 5+ (non-incentivized RBF indicator)
2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
ControlTreatment
Mar
-11
Jun-
11
Sep-
11
Dec-1
1
Mar
-12
Jun-
12
Sep-
12
Dec-1
2
Mar
-13
Jun-
130
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
33
27 31
32
HMIS RBF
HMIS Non-RBF
per
10
,00
0 p
op
ula
tion
HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Difference Between Declared and Verified 6 Month Totals
Within 5% Difference
Improving implementation design
Green Category:• Verified on a quarterly basis
Amber Category• Verified bi-monthly -
randomly selected 2 months
Red Category• Verified on a monthly basis• Also incorporates new
facilitiesDifference above 5% but below or equal to 10%
Difference above 10%
• Model based on three risk levels• Comparison between declared and
verified values for 6-month totals
Zimbabwe: switching to risk based evaluation based on comparing reported and verified data
Promoting transparency and accountability
Burundi
Benin
Nigeria
Issues in working with operational data
• Quality of data• Availability of data outside program (catchment
population)• Capacity to design and manage a database• Capacity to analyze data• Standardized methods and assumption to calculate
coverage• Practice of sharing data and using results for decision
making • Integration with country HMIS
Top Related