dhis2-users team mailing list archive

[Jason Pickering <jason.p.pickering@xxxxxxxxx>]

As Lars says, there are lots of opinions. We have been running a partner
reporting system in Nigeria for a few years now. There are lots of
challenges, including a lot of central administration mostly due to the way
that DHIS2 delegates authority down the hierarchy. There was a decision
made there to maintain compatibility with the government system (also using
DHIS2) and use their hierarchy. If we had used a partner-based reporting
hierarchy (i.e. Funding agency (e.g. USAID) -> Implementing partner ->
Facility) things would have been much easier. This would allow the partners
to maintain their own branch of the hierarchy, without any need for central
administration, and not require the use of potentially dozens of categories
which change over time. Personally, I have had a lot of issues changing the
category options, and would not recommend this approach to dealing with the
partners entering data. If a partner based hierarchy is used, they can at
least generate reports and use the data visualizer (and potentially even
the GIS if you have facility coordinates).

This obviously creates problems if you need to integrate the data with a
geographically based hierarchy, but with 2.11, you can import just the data
values. If the facility level UIDs are maintained in sync, then having two
instances (one with a geographically based hierarchy and one with a partner
based hierarchy) should be feasible. As long as the UIDs are in sync, then
data exchange between the two systems should be possible, as long as the
UIDs of the facilities are kept in check. Of course problems may occur if
two partner s are reporting on the same activities in the same facilities.
The M&E people tell me this should never happen however, i.e. NGO 1 and NGO
2 both performing PMTCT services in the same facility. There are certainly
possible complications with this approach, but having to create and
maintain what Lars suggest also sounds like a very bitter pill to have to
swallow. I personally think some sort of post-data entry data
transformation would be a better idea, if compatibility with the government
system (geographically based) is an issue. Otherwise, the partner based
hierarchy potentially solves a lot of problems.

My two cents anyway.

Regards,
Jason



On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Hi Randy,
>
> on this issue there are lots of opinions - my recommendation would be to
> stick to the aggregate part of the system and leave out the individual
> records module. This is routine data captured at a fixed interval so
> capturing it as events might become messy over time.
>
> My suggestion on how to solve this would be to use categories - you could:
>
> - set up a category and category combination called "Partners".
> - category options for each partner like "FHI" and "ACCESS".
> - create data elements for each service and assign them to the partner
> category combination.
> - create one data set per partner (e.g. "HIV counselling FHI").
> - for each data set you create a custom form, and insert the data element
> + category option combinations for input fields accordingly.
> - you create user roles for each partner.
> - you assign the partner data sets to the corresponding partner user roles.
> - you assign users for each partner to the corresponding user roles.
> - you assign data sets (for partners) to facilities according to where the
> partners operate.
>
> The partners can then select their data set when entering data, without
> having to worry about "who they are". There are no extra org units to
> maintain and the partners cannot mix up data sets when entering data.
>
> One drawback is that you have to create those extra custom forms, but
> since you have a "very simple list of services" this might be affordable.
>
> regards,
>
> Lars
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Wilson,Randy <rwilson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  Hi all,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Our HIV team works with civil society organizations and local partners to
>> track a very simple list of services provided to persons living with
>> HIV/Aids.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The data elements themselves are all numeric so it would be easy to do in
>> a regular data set, except that partners don’t fit well in the reporting
>> hierarchy which goes from Province -> district -> sub-district -> sector ->
>> health facility.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Data entered are total numbers per district per partner.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> For example, a partner (FHI) might work in several districts, so there
>> would be more than one FHI report for a given period.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> District****
>>
>> Partner****
>>
>> Period****
>>
>> Dataelement****
>>
>> Datavalue****
>>
>> Rwamagana****
>>
>> FHI****
>>
>> Feb-13****
>>
>> # of PLWHA mutuelle payments made****
>>
>> 12****
>>
>> Gicumbi****
>>
>> FHI****
>>
>> Feb-13****
>>
>> # of PLWHA mutuelle payments made****
>>
>> 30****
>>
>> Huye****
>>
>> ACCESS****
>>
>> Feb-13****
>>
>> # of PLWHA mutuelle payments made****
>>
>> 44****
>>
>> Gicumbi****
>>
>> ACCESS****
>>
>> Feb-13****
>>
>> # of PLWHA mutuelle payments made****
>>
>> 23****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I’ve thought of creating a separate partner’s table and entering a
>> partner numeric code as one of the fields that could called up in a special
>> report, but referential integrity rules won’t let me enter more than one
>> data value record per period per district.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We can create the report using the Single Event Without Registration
>> feature in Individual Records, using an Option set to maintain the list of
>> partners, but unfortunately we can’t seem to use any of this data in the
>> dashboard, data visualizer, maps or standard reports.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> If Single Event Without Registration is the only way to enter the data,
>> would it not be possible to expose the dataelements for use with the
>> standard reporting tools?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I remember Jason had to develop this sort of relationship for some work
>> he did in Zambia but I’m not sure if it is documented somewhere.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Randy****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
>> Post to     : dhis2-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
> Post to     : dhis2-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>