Tugas

Sistem Informasi Kesehatan

Dosen Pengampu:
Dr. Ahmad Syafruddin I
PROGRAM STUDI S3 KESEHATAN MASYARAKAT
FK UNAND ANGKATAN 2017
Kelompok 2:
LAILA ISRONA
VIVITRIANA
EKA TRIO EFFANDILUS
DEWI SHINTA KEMALA SARI
POM HARRY SATRIA
 TUGAS
1. Pelajari dan berikan komentar untuk Penilaian SIK
menurut:
A. Health Metric Network (HMN)
(Version_4.00_Assessment_Tools3.pdf)
B.Commision On information and
Accountability (COIA)
2. Ambil kasus/artikel SIK, kemudian lakukan
analisis kekurangan yang terjadi dan usulan
perbaikan.
• TUGAS 1.A
Pelajari dan berikan komentar untuk Penilaian
SIK menurut:
A. Health Metric Network (HMN)
(Version_4.00_Assessment_Tools3.pdf)
 https://afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2017-
06/AHO_HealthMetricsNetwork_Assessment_
Tool_version4.00.pdf

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/c
ountry_monitoring_evaluation/w
ho-hmn-framework-standards-
chi.pdf
• The Health Metrics Network (HMN)
• founded on the premise that better health
information means better decision-making,
leading to better health.
 Sistem Informasi Kesehatan:

• seperangkat tatanan
• meliputi data, informasi, indikator, prosedur,
perangkat, teknologi, dan sumber daya
• saling berkaitan dan dikelola terpadu
• untuk mengarahkan tindakan atau keputusan
 mendukung pembangunan kesehatan.
 Rationale for strengthening health
information systems
*Improving health – the reason for better health
information
*The challenge of measuring health
 complexe: statistical, public health and
biomedical knowledge and expertise unique to
each disease or programme area.
 accurate measurement
availability of disease-specific biometric tests,
clinical diagnoses, and the feasibility of
measuring population behaviours and the
coverage of health services.
*Poor performance of health information
systems:
haphazard and fragmented: administrative,
economic, legal or donor pressures.
Much of the material remains unprocessed,
or, if processed, unanalysed, or, if analysed,
not read, or, if read, not used or acted upon.1
*Drivers for change
• There is broad consensus that improved
health outcomes cannot be achieved without
strengthening health systems (including
health information systems) as a whole, rather
than focusing on discrete, disease-focused
components.
* Global standards and harmonization of health
information
* A unifying approach to health information system
development
Multiple insitute produce and use health data:
health ministries, national statistics offices, the
emergency response sector, the private sector,
civil society organizations, donors and
development assistance agencies.
Because health information system development
is not the domain of a single entity, a
comprehensive and collaborative plan is needed
to reform health information systems.
 Assessment of the national health
information system (HIS) :
What are the objectives of assessment?
• in order to:
• allow objective baseline and follow-up evaluations – assessment
findings should therefore be comparable over time;
• inform stakeholders – for example, of aspects of the HIS with which
they may not be familiar;
• build consensus around the priority needs for health information
system strengthening; and
• mobilize joint technical and financial support for the
implementation of a national HIS strategic plan – with indications of
the priority investments in the short term (1–2 years), intermediate
term (3–9 years) and long term (10 years and beyond).
• Who should assess?
• all major stakeholders should participate in
assessing the national HIS and planning for its
strengthening. Stakeholders will include the
producers, users and financiers of health
information and other social statistics at
various national and subnational levels.
How can assessment be organized and
facilitated?
• An assessment may be conducted during a
large dedicated national workshop and/or
during smaller meetings of several groups.
How can final consensus be reached and
findings disseminated?
• a plenary session of at least 3 hours should be
organized to review and reach consensus on
the key assessment findings
How can the assessment findings be built upon?
• the assessment report should provide
information for the development of a
comprehensive strategic plan for national HIS
strengthening.
 Scoring and interpretation of results
• For each item included in this assessment tool, a range of possible
scenarios is provided allowing for objective and quantitative rating.
The highest score (3) is given for a scenario considered Highly
adequate compared to the gold standard as defined by the HMN
Framework.
• The lowest score (0) is given when the situation is regarded as Not
adequate at all in terms of meeting the gold standard.
• The total score for each category is aggregated and compared
against the maximum possible score to yield a percentage rating.
Each of the questions can potentially be rated by multiple
respondents and the replies aggregated to obtain an overall score.
The more varied the (informed) respondents involved, the lower
the risk of bias in the end results. In some cases, a particular item
may be judged as inapplicable. If so, it should be omitted from the
scoring process and the reasons for doing so recorded.
The HMN Assessment And Monitoring Tool: Version 4
I. Assessing national HIS resources
• National HIS information policies
• National HIS financial and human resources National
HIS infrastructure
II. Assessing national HIS indicators
• Assessing national HIS indicators
III. Assessing national HIS data sources
• Censuses
• Civil registration
• Population surveys
• Individual records
• Service records
• Resource records
• IV. Assessing national HIS data management
• Assessing national HIS data management
• V. Assessing national HIS data quality
• Under-5 mortality
• Maternal mortality
• HIV prevalence
• Measles vaccination coverage
• Attended deliveries
• Tuberculosis treatment
• General government health expenditure (GGHE) per
capita
• Private expenditure
• Workforce density
• Smoking prevalence
• VI. Assessing national HIS information
dissemination and use
• Demand and analysis
• Policy and advocacy
• Planning and priority-setting
• Resource allocation
• Implementation and action
 Workshop:
• to build broad-based consensus among key stakeholders in the
following three stages:
• First, a workshop is held to mark the launch of national HIS reform,
the first stage of which is leadership, consensus-building and
assessment activities.
• A second workshop then follows to initiate assessment of the
health information system, supplemented by follow-up visits to key
stakeholders. Another key function of the second workshop is to
assess, and open dialogue on, the strengths and challenges of the
existing system.
• The third workshop coincides with the end of the assessment phase
and is used to share and discuss findings, highlight existing
weaknesses and map a way forward for the planning process.
Rubrik:
 Komentar:
• Untuk memperoleh informasi kesehatan yang
akurat, terpercaya dan terintegrasi diperlukan SIK
yang terpadu.
• WHO telah memberikan panduan atau kerangka
acuan untuk hal di atas.
• Termasuk juga cara memberikan
penilaian/assessment terhadap SIK.
• Lengkap dengan workshop yang harus diikuti
stakeholder serta rubrik assessment.
• Diperlukan usaha dari pengampu kebijakan
kesehatan dalam pelaksanaannya.
 Tugas 1.B
http://www.who.int/woman_child_accountability/news/
background_progress_report_jan2014.pdf
• An unprecedented step towards global reporting, oversight and accountability for
women’s and children’s health (Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5) was taken
in 2011 when the United Nations SecretaryGeneral’s Global Strategy for Women’s
and Children’s Health, the Commission on Information and Accountability for
Women’s and Children’s Health (CoIA) was created.
• The Commission, convened by President Kikwete of the United Republic of
Tanzania and Prime Minister Harper of Canada put forth 10 recommendations to
strengthen accountability for women’s and children’s health.
• Implementing the Commission’s 10 recommendations has demonstrated that the
process for developing Country Accountability Frameworks is an innovative
approach to strengthening accountability, transparency and improving data
quality.
• Accountability and transparency are now key critical issues when dealing with
women’s and children’s health, with improvements sought by donors and
countries alike. The implementation process has been an excellent platform for
bringing together donors and country stakeholders, and for strengthening
International Health Partnership (IHP+) processes.
 Commission on Information and
Accountability Recommendations
Better information for better results
• 1. Vital events: By 2015, all countries have taken significant steps to
establish a system for registration of births, deaths and causes of
death, and have well-functioning health information systems that
combine data from facilities, administrative sources and surveys.
• 2. Health indicators: By 2012, the same 11 indicators on
reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health, disaggregated
for gender and other equity considerations, are being used for the
purpose of monitoring progress towards the goals of the Global
Strategy.
• 3. Innovation: By 2015, all countries have integrated the use of
Information and Communication Technologies in their national
health information systems and health infrastructure.
• Better tracking of resources
• 4. Resource tracking: By 2015, all 75 countries where 98% of
maternal and child deaths take place are tracking and reporting, at
a minimum, two aggregate resource indicators: 1) total health
expenditure by financing source, per capita; and 2) total
reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health expenditure by
financing source, per capita.
• 5. Country Compacts: By 2012, in order to facilitate resource
tracking, “compacts” between country governments and all major
development partners are in place that require reporting, based on
a format to be agreed in each country, on externally funded
expenditures and predictable commitments.
• 6. Reaching women and children: By 2015, all governments have
the capacity to regularly review health spending (including spending
on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health) and to relate
spending to commitments, human rights, gender and other equity
goals and results.
• Better oversight of results and resources: nationally and globally
7. National oversight: By 2012, all countries have established
national accountability mechanisms that are transparent, that are
inclusive of all stakeholders, and that recommend remedial action,
as required.
• 8. Transparency: By 2013, all stakeholders are publicly sharing
information on commitments, resources provided and results
achieved annually, at both national and international levels.
• 9. Reporting aid for women's and children's health: By 2012,
development partners request the OECDDAC to agree on how to
improve the Creditor Reporting System so that it can capture, in a
timely manner, all reproductive, maternal, newborn and child
health spending by development partners. In the interim,
development partners and the OECD implement a simple method
for reporting such expenditure.
• 10. Global oversight: Starting in 2012 and ending in 2015, an
independent “Expert Review Group” is reporting regularly to the
United Nations Secretary-General on the results and resources
related to the Global Strategy and on progress in implementing this
Commission's recommendations.
• Dari 10 rekomendasi di atas SIK menajdi
sangat penting dalam kesehatan terutama
dengan kesehatan Wanita dan Anak.
 Tugas 2: Analisis SIK
• Sistem Informasi Rujukan Terintegrasi Kota
Tangerang Dinilai Kurang Efektif
• Januari 29, 2018
• http://bbsnews.co.id/sistem-informasi-
rujukan-terintegrasi-kota-tangerang-dinilai-
kurang-efektif/
• Kasus SISRUTE di Pemkot Tangerang:
• Sisrute merupakan aplikasi yang dibangun untuk kalangan terbatas dari
fasilitas kesehatan yang satu ke fasilitas kesehatan yang lain, baik secara
vertikal maupun horizontal.
• Pemkot Tangerang sendiri sudah mengembangkan sistem rujukan online
itu di 22 Rumah Sakit dan 15 Puskesmas yang ada di Kota Tangerang.
• Manfaat dari sistem informasi rurjukan terintegasi sendiri yakni untuk
mengurangi atau menghindari pasien touring hospital (berkunjung ke
tempat pelayanan kesehatan-red), dengan mengkedepankan informasi
berjalan yang tujuannya adalah untuk memudahkan pasien
• Sehingga, pasien dari rumah datang ke fasilitas pelayanan kesehatan,
kemudian jika dari fasilitas pelayanan kesehatan tidak ada sarana dan
prasarana atau tidak ada pelayanan fasilitas kesehatan, maka bisa
memanfaatkan Sisrute untuk merujuknya ke fasilitas kesehatan lanjutan.
• Masalah:
• - Sistem tidak berjalan: karena RS rujukan tidak
memberikan respon/respon lama terhadap
jawaban dari pengirim pesan.
• - Jawaban ada tapi  Alat/SDM di RS tujuan
tidak tersedia
• - Pelayanan menjadi lama
• Misal pasien A dari RS.Sitanala – Rujuk ke RS X,
tidak mendapat jawaban  memindahkan
langsung ke RSUD Tangerang
• Analisis:
1. Faktor Pemerintah
– Regulasi
– Standar SIRS tidak sama
2. Fragmentasi
– Sistem beda di semua jenajng administasi kecamatan.
RS swasta di kab. duplikasi data, data tidak lengkap,
tidak valid dan tidak terhubung datu sama lain.
– Aliran data yang tidak berimbang.
3. Keterbatasan sumber daya:
- SDM
- Finansial
- Infrastruktur
- Data
dll