HNQIS 2 (H2) has been configured to use the DHIS2 tracker data model.

H2 can be used either on the DHIS2 tracker capture app or in the DHIS2 standard Android app.

This is in contrast to H1, which required the use of a custom Android App.

Optionally, access to the feedback functionality is available by using a PSI’s fork android app. (links, links, links)

DHIS2 Tracker Data Model And Options

An assessment is formed from multiple types of events (DHIS2 Program Stages).

• The actual assessment (A none-repeatable stage), which contains all the questions (this could be hundreds)

• Action items (a repeatable stage). Each entry is a corrective action that is agreed upon after the supervision

• Feedback program stage, in the form of ‘managed events’. This feature doesn’t exist yet, but it is planned by UiO. It could result in many entries, one per failed question.

Org Units assignment: Facilities vs Providers

When a H2 Program is created, there are different levels at which you can enable it using the Program Org Unit assignment feature.

Most DHIS2 server already has their Org Unit structures with the facility level as their lowest level.

Only some use a subsequent level to register the actual health provider, by name, allowing the recording and analysis of data specific to the health officer’s performance.

We present below the different ways that you can do the Org Unit assignment of H2 assessment lists, and their pros and cons.

Option 1: Provider as the OU (recommended)

• Sub-National (OU)

  • Facility (OU)

    • Provider (OU) --> Program OU assignment

      • Assessment Cycle (TEI): Start/ End, Scoring data

        • Feedback (Managed events - future)

        • Actions (Repeatable event)

Main advantages

• UX: each TEI is a single assessment, with the related required set of actions and feedback.

• Compatible with UiO’s future managed events design to address the feedback functionality - each failed question creates one managed event, which results in multiple entries.

• Allows assignment of specific checklists to each provider (as they are OUs)

• Analytics: fully fledge, at the provider level

Disadvantages

• It requires the provider to be set as an org unit before the assessment can be conducted.

Option 2: Facility as the OU / Provider as TEA

This is a variation of Option 1, which introduces the use of a TEA (Tracked Entity Attribute) that allows recording the provider name (free text).

Note: you will need to modify PSI’s provided metadata packages for this option. You will need to create a new TEA for the provider, and add it to the TEI assessment.

• Sub-National (OU)

  • Facility (OU)  --> Program OU assignment

    • Assessment Cycle (TEI): Start/ End, Scoring data.
      TEA: PROVIDER

      • Assessment (single events)

      • Feedback (Managed events - future. Could be 100s)

      • Actions (Repeatable event - 1 to 5 per assessment

Main advantages

• It is rare to have a full list of providers available in advance to set up as OUs. Using TEA allows the recording of the provider’s name at the time of the assessment.

Disadvantages

• Analytics can only be generated by the facility, NOT by the provider (provider shows only line-listing analytics)

• Feedback sharing is at the Org Unit level, not at the provider level.

Option 3: Facility as the OU / Provider as TEI

The idea is to ‘enrol’ a provider as a tracked entity, and then conduct all assessments in that Tracked Entity.

Note: you will need to modify PSI’s provided metadata packages for this option. You will need to create a new type of Tracked Entity, and change the PCA.

• Sub-National (OU)

  • Facility (OU) --> Program OU assignment

    • Provider (TEI)

      • Assessment (Repeatable event, one per assessment)

      • Feedback (Managed events - future. Could be 100s)

      • Actions (Repeatable event - 1 to 5 per assessment

Main advantages

• It is rare to have a full list of providers available in advance to set up as OU's. Using TEI to enrol a provider during the visit is more realistic for on-the-ground implementation.

Disadvantages:

• Mixes assessment/ actions and feedback events (managed events for feedback)

• Current fork feedback will not work

• Future feedback (managed events) will be a long list, and difficult to visualise.

• Not compatible with PSI’s PCA.

Option 4: Provider as TEI, Assessment as Enrolment

Discarded - analytics is not possible: we cannot use enrolments as DHIS2 doesn’t yet (2.38) have enrolment analytics.