A rapid assessment of the implementation of integrated disease surveillance and response system in Northeast Nigeria, 2017

• Published in: BMC public health Vol. 20; no. 1; p. 600
• Main Authors: Ibrahim, Luka Mangveep, Stephen, Mary, Okudo, Ifeanyi, Kitgakka, Samuel Mutbam, Mamadu, Ibrahim Njida, Njai, Isha Fatma, Oladele, Saliu, Garba, Sadiq, Ojo, Olubunmi, Ihekweazu, Chikwe, Lasuba, Clement Lugala Peter, Yahaya, Ali Ahmed, Nsubuga, Peter, Alemu, Wondimagegnehu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 01.05.2020; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Analysis; Assessments; Check lists; Cholera; Data collection; Decision analysis; Decision making; Diagnosis; Disease; Epidemics; Geopolitics; Health care facilities; Health facilities; Health surveillance; Humanitarianism; Implementation; Infections; Integrated disease surveillance and response; Laboratories; Local government; Meningitis; Mortality; Nigeria; Polls & surveys; Public health; Qualitative analysis; Questionnaires; Rapid assessment; Spreadsheets; Supervision; Waterborne diseases; Nigeria; Integrated disease surveillance and response; Nigeria; Rapid assessment; Implementation
• ISSN: 1471-2458; 1471-2458
• DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-08707-4

Integrated disease surveillance and response (IDSR) is the strategy adopted for public health surveillance in Nigeria. IDSR has been operational in Nigeria since 2001 but the functionality varies from state to state. The outbreaks of cerebrospinal meningitis and cholera in 2017 indicated weakness in the functionality of the system. A rapid assessment of the IDSR was conducted in three northeastern states to identify and address gaps to strengthen the system. The survey was conducted at the state and local government areas using standard IDSR assessment tools which were adapted to the Nigerian context. Checklists were used to extract data from reports and records on resources and tools for implementation of IDSR. Questionnaires were used to interview respondents on their capacities to implement IDSR. Quantitative data were entered into an MS Excel spreadsheet, analysed and presented in proportions. Qualitative data were summarised and reported by thematic area. A total of 34 respondents participated in the rapid survey from six health facilities and six local government areas (LGAs). Of the 2598 health facilities in the three states, only 606 (23%) were involved in reporting IDSR. The standard case definitions were available in all state and LGA offices and health facilities visited. Only 41 (63%) and 31 (47.7%) of the LGAs in the three states had rapid response teams and epidemic preparedness and response committees respectively. The Disease Surveillance and Notification Officers (DSNOs) and clinicians' knowledge were limited to only timeliness and completeness among over 10 core indicators for IDSR. Review of the facility registers revealed many missing variables; the commonly missed variables were patients' age, sex, diagnosis and laboratory results. The major gaps were poor documentation of patients' data in the facility registers, inadequate reporting tools, limited participation of health facilities in IDSR and limited capacities of personnel to identify, report IDSR priority diseases, analyze and interpret IDSR data for decision making. Training of surveillance focal persons, provision of IDSR reporting tools and effective supportive supervisions will strengthen the system in the country.