Evaluation on injury surveillance system and 19 causes reporting system in the Office of Disease Prevention and Control Region 11, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand

Abstract

This was a descriptive study to evaluate the injury surveillance system and 19 causes of reporting system in the Office of Disease Prevention and Control region 11, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province (DPC11), Thailand. The evaluation method was measured by input, process, and productivity of injury surveillance. Participants were 171 officers working in 9 network hospitals. Six officers working in the injury surveillance at provincial level were interviewed. In addition, information on supervision of the surveillance system was summarized from 9 network hospitals. Findings revealed that input process for number of officers was not enough in the working system. Guidelines on information for injury surveillance system and computers for management were adequate. The ISWIN program was easy to use. Most officers knew that their hospitals’ officers were meeting or observing activities following the Bureau of Epidemiology or DPC11. The supervision process could support management of the surveillance system in their hospitals. Majority of officers did not know that there was a reward from the Bureau of Epidemiology for officer working in this system. Moreover, most of officers thought that they were not supported by chief executive committee in work. They also pointed that Flow of reporting surveillance system was appropriate and useful. The coverage and completeness were verified in each step of the system. They stated that the surveillance system could be able to decrease complication in report from emergency department and 19 causes of reporting system. Coverage of injury report accounted for 90% and approximately 6 hospitals had key data on time (100%). All hospitals did not completely fill data in the IS form and activity during situation was found less completely. Six hospitals did not completely fill data and history of conscious in situation was the most incorrect variables. There were 5 hospitals which did coverage disease codes. Furthermore, five hospitals did not correctly key data, with splint/slab and immobilization of C-spine were the most incorrect variables. There were also found that only 5 hospitals used information from the surveillance system. Therefore, the injury surveillance system should be well managed, especially verifying of data recorded in IS form, disease codes and key data. The information of surveillance system should be used in work. Supervision of surveillance system and 19 causes of reporting system should be organized by DPC11. Refresher training for officers should be managed at least annually, focusing on knowledge of the surveillance and reporting system. The presentation and useful information from the surveillance system in hospital which organized rather than 10 years should be evaluated once per year. Keywords: Injury Surveillance, Evaluation