Technical efficiency of primary health units in Kailahun and Kenema districts of Sierra Leone

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objectives of the study reported in this paper were to (i) estimate the technical efficiency of samples of community health centres (CHCs), community health posts (CHPs) and maternal and child health posts (MCHPs) in Kailahun and Kenema districts of Sierra Leone, (ii) estimate the output increases needed to make inefficient MCHPs, CHCs and CHPs efficient, and (iii) explore strategies for increasing technical efficiency of these institutions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study applies the data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to analyse technical efficiency of random samples of 36 MCHPs, 22 CHCs and 21 CHPs using input and output data for 2008.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The findings indicate that 77.8% of the MCHPs, 59.1% of the CHCs and 66.7% of the CHPs were variable returns to scale technically inefficient. The average variable returns to scale technical efficiency was 68.2% (SD = 27.2) among the MCHPs, 69.2% (SD = 33.2) among the CHCs and 59% (SD = 34.7) among the CHPs.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study reveals significant technical inefficiencies in the use of health system resources among peripheral health units in Kailahun and Kenema districts of Sierra Leone. There is need to strengthen national and district health information systems to routinely track the quantities and prices of resources injected into the health care systems and health service outcomes (indicators of coverage, quality and health status) to facilitate regular efficiency analyses.</p

Conceptual framework of public health surveillance and action and its application in health sector reform

BACKGROUND: Because both public health surveillance and action are crucial, the authors initiated meetings at regional and national levels to assess and reform surveillance and action systems. These meetings emphasized improved epidemic preparedness, epidemic response, and highlighted standardized assessment and reform. METHODS: To standardize assessments, the authors designed a conceptual framework for surveillance and action that categorized the framework into eight core and four support activities, measured with indicators. RESULTS: In application, country-level reformers measure both the presence and performance of the six core activities comprising public health surveillance (detection, registration, reporting, confirmation, analyses, and feedback) and acute (epidemic-type) and planned (management-type) responses composing the two core activities of public health action. Four support activities – communications, supervision, training, and resource provision – enable these eight core processes. National, multiple systems can then be concurrently assessed at each level for effectiveness, technical efficiency, and cost. CONCLUSIONS: This approach permits a cost analysis, highlights areas amenable to integration, and provides focused intervention. The final public health model becomes a district-focused, action-oriented integration of core and support activities with enhanced effectiveness, technical efficiency, and cost savings. This reform approach leads to sustained capacity development by an empowerment strategy defined as facilitated, process-oriented action steps transforming staff and the system

Conceptual framework of public health surveillance and action and its application in health sector reform

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Because both public health surveillance and action are crucial, the authors initiated meetings at regional and national levels to assess and reform surveillance and action systems. These meetings emphasized improved epidemic preparedness, epidemic response, and highlighted standardized assessment and reform.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To standardize assessments, the authors designed a conceptual framework for surveillance and action that categorized the framework into eight core and four support activities, measured with indicators.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In application, country-level reformers measure both the presence and performance of the six core activities comprising public health surveillance (detection, registration, reporting, confirmation, analyses, and feedback) and acute (epidemic-type) and planned (management-type) responses composing the two core activities of public health action. Four support activities – communications, supervision, training, and resource provision – enable these eight core processes. National, multiple systems can then be concurrently assessed at each level for effectiveness, technical efficiency, and cost.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This approach permits a cost analysis, highlights areas amenable to integration, and provides focused intervention. The final public health model becomes a district-focused, action-oriented integration of core and support activities with enhanced effectiveness, technical efficiency, and cost savings. This reform approach leads to sustained capacity development by an empowerment strategy defined as facilitated, process-oriented action steps transforming staff and the system.</p