| Indicator ID | H13 |
|---|---|
| Indicator full statement | # of community and primary healthcare workers that are trained on health crises response protocols including infection prevention and control and the e-health SURGE approach. |
Purpose
| Importance | This indicator measures Tdh’s extent of capacity-building efforts among healthcare workers in community and primary health settings regarding health crisis management where Tdh is conducting related activities. Training on national and international protocols for responding to health crises, including infection prevention and control and the e-Health SURGE approach, is essential for ensuring effective and timely responses to emergencies and outbreaks to prevent and cure. |
|---|---|
| ToC pathway | This indicator directly refers to the Tdh Theory of Change (ToC) as it aims to contribute to 3the three inter-related pathways of change, namely 1) local health system, 2) communities, and 3) mothers, children, and their families. |
| Related services | It is used depending on the service provided by Tdh. This indicator is often used in emergency response, according to Tdh package of services. |
Definition
This indicator measures the number of community and primary healthcare workers who have been trained by Tdh or Tdh supported organizations in 1) health crisis response protocols for managing health emergencies, 2) Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) good practices to prevent the spread of infections in healthcare settings and the community, and 3) e-Health SURGE approach that encompasses digital health strategies and tools designed to rapid and effective response during health crises.
How to collect & analyse the data
| What do we count? | The number of community and primary healthcare workers who have completed training on health crisis response protocols, including IPC and the e-Health SURGE approach. |
|---|---|
| Data sources | Training program data: Records from institutions or programs conducting the training, such as Tdh’s dedicated training team, Ministries of Health (MoH) responsible of the deployment of the health crisis protocols (i.e., health district as trainer by Tdh), universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector (i.e., Tdh partners in the development and diffusion of the health crisis protocols) or professional development organizations (if applicable at the program’s stage). Health facility data: Health facility reports on staff participation in health crisis training, particularly where e-Health SURGE is integrated into routine health services. Digital health platform reports: Reports from digital tool providers or training platforms showing user registration, training completion, and utilization of early-warning tools by healthcare workers. |
| Data collection methods and tools | Secondary data / document review :
|
| Disaggregation | Data should be stratified by :
Where appropriate depending on the data source and reporting tool used. |
| Important considerations | Frequency and timing Monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting from health district and HIS. Baseline, mid-term and endline (or annually) studies through community survey/report and project documentation to supplement routine data. |
Limitations and precautions
This indicator measures the number of healthcare workers trained in health crisis protocols and digital surveillance tools, reflecting capacity-building efforts over a specified period and geographic area, such as a district, country, or region. It can serve as a proxy for health facility readiness to effectively deploy these tools.
However, the quality of training programs may vary, and training does not always lead to sustained clinical practice. Assessing the relevance, depth, and practicality of training content is vital, as is the ability of healthcare workers to retain and apply their skills. Follow-up assessments and refresher trainings based on technical supervision results are essential, using standardized evaluation templates for consistency. Training should cover all relevant aspects of health crisis response, infection prevention and control (IPC), and the e-Health SURGE approach.
Despite proper training, healthcare workers may face limitations due to inadequate infrastructure, such as poor internet connectivity and unreliable electricity, creating a gap between training and actual use. Motivation, perceptions, and commitment to using digital surveillance tools must also be evaluated for a comprehensive analysis.
Training may be concentrated in urban areas, potentially excluding those in rural or underserved regions. Disaggregating data by geographic location and facility type ensures preparedness efforts reach all relevant healthcare workers. Additionally, different professions may have varying training needs, necessitating tailored programs based on roles and existing skills. Staff turnover and rotation should also be considered when analyzing the indicator's impact.
It is important to plan Post-training follow-up: Periodic assessments (i.e., annually) should be conducted to evaluate how many healthcare workers continue using the tools they were trained on in the program’s operational area.
What further analysis are we interested in?
This indicator allows the analysis of the number of healthcare workers who have been trained on health crisis protocols over time, identifying trends in training uptake across different regions and facility types.
This indicator will allow further evaluations on how effectively healthcare workers apply their training in emergency settings, particularly the sustained use of early-warning and e-Health SURGE. For this purpose, it can be cross analysed with other collected data such as post-training assessments and Tdh’s technical supervision reports, completeness, uniqueness, timeliness, validity, accuracy, and consistency of quality of the health report submitted by the trained health workers.
The number of trained health workers could be analysed in relation with other indicators such as the number of data entry to evaluate the link between training and actual usage of these tools; as well as with the percentage of health facilities routinely using digital surveillance tools to assess how training efforts align with facility-level adoption of digital emergency health solutions across time.
Finally, this indicator might be used to explore the corelation between training uptake and impacts on healthcare service delivery, including quality of care, patient satisfaction, and health outcomes (i.e., other maternal, newborn, and child health indicators) during an emergency and the compliance to protocols during health crisis.
Additional guidance
Under the technical assistance of HQ, Tdh M&E and operational teams in each delegation should work closely with health authorities to collect and interpret the data. Collaboration with the health authorities and professional associations is essential ensure that health crisis training is embedded in broader capacity-building programs, sustainable health workforce development strategies and health system strengthening efforts.
Regularly (i.e., annually) evaluate training programs for quality, relevance, and effectiveness and collect feedback from healthcare workers on the usefulness of training and identify areas for improvement (i.e., patient satisfaction survey, post-training assessments).
A technical supervision guidance tool is advisable to efficiently compare training efforts and practical implantation.
Recommendations on digital interventions for Health System strengthening, World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550505 (Accessed: 11 September 2024).
Early warning surveillance and response in emergencies, Report of the WHO technical workshop, 2009, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/70218/WHO_HSE_GAR_DCE_2010.4_eng.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed 16 September 2024)
WHO guidance on preparing for national response to health emergencies and
disasters. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Available at: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/350838/9789240037182-eng.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed 15 September 2024)
Guidelines on core components of infection prevention and control programmes at the national and acute health care facility level. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549929 (Accessed 15 September 2024)