DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District Metro View It is encouraging to see an increase in utilisation rate in four of the six metros, with an increase in the metro average of 0.2 visits in 2006/07. It is especially pleasing to see the increase in all three of the Gauteng metros (City of Tshwane, City of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni), as these were ranked amongst the ten lowest in SA in 2005/06. Of concern is the decline in the utilisation rates of Nelson Mandela Bay Metro (EC) and City of Cape Town (WC). Figure 82: Change in primary health care utilisation rate by metro district, 2005/06 - 2006/07 Change in PHC utilisation rate, 2005/06 - 2006/07 South Africa Metro average City of Tshwane City of Johannesburg Ekurhuleni eThekwini Nelson Mandela Bay Metro City of Cape Town EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Average number of visits per person Rural Nodes Overall, there was a very marginal decline in the average utilisation rate for the ISRDP nodes in 2006/07. There were, however, individual increases in all four of the rural nodes in KwaZulu-Natal and two of these districts; Ugu and Umkhanyakude, at 2.3 and 2.4 visits per person respectively, were higher than the national average. Figure 83: Change in primary health care utilisation rate by rural district, 2005/06 - 2006/07 Change in PHC utilisation rate, 2005/06 - 2006/07 South Africa ISRDP average Zululand Ugu Umkhanyakude Umzinyathi Ukhahlamba Central Karoo Thabo Mofutsanyane O.R. Tambo Greater Sekhukhune Chris Hani Alfred Nzo Kgalagadi EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 Average number of visits per person THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST 87
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District 5. Outcome indicators 5.1 Incidence of new Sexually Transmitted Infections Marion Stevens This indicator measures the percentage of people 15 years and older who have been treated for a new episode of a sexually transmitted infection (STI). In other words an STI incidence of 5% means that for every 100 people fifteen years and older, during the year under review, 5 of them were treated in the public sector clinics for a new episode of a STI. The average STI incidence in SA during 2006/07 was 4.9%, an increase of 0.1% from 2005/06. The average rate in the rural districts improved from 6.2% in 2005/06 to 5.8% in 2006/07. The metro districts had more cases and the incidence increased from 3.9% in 2005/06 to 4.6% in 2006/07. District View Of all the districts, Namakwa (NC) had the lowest incidence of STIs (1.0%), while Sisonke (KZN) had the highest at 11.6%. All the districts in KwaZulu- Natal had high incidences of STIs, well above the national average. Overall the incidence in Gauteng increased significantly from a rate of 3.2% in 2005/06 to 4.2% in 2006/07. Limpopo districts all showed an improvement in STI incidence. Figure 84 and Map 17 illustrate the variation between all the districts. Map 17: Incidence of new STIs by district in South Africa 2006/07 Incidence of STI treated - new, 2006/07 Legend STI_06 under 3.0 % 3.0 - 3.9 % 4.0 - 4.9 % 5.0 - 6.9 % 7.0 % and above 88 THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST
Page 1 and 2:
0 100 200 300 400 500 2006/07
Page 3 and 4:
Team for the Preparation of the Dis
Page 5 and 6:
Section B - District and province p
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword The District Health Barome
Page 9 and 10:
Variables included in the analysis
Page 11 and 12:
Data quality varies for a number of
Page 13 and 14:
Figure A: Provincial values affecte
Page 15 and 16:
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 99: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 139 and 140: 126 Indicator Type Demographic and
Page 141 and 142: Section B: District and Province Pr
Page 151 and 152:
Section B: District and Province Pr
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Appendices Appendix 2 Deprivation I
Page 217 and 218:
Appendices Interpreting negative an
Page 219 and 220:
Appendices Appendix 4: Indicator De
Page 221 and 222:
Appendices Group ``Type Level Indic
Page 223 and 224:
Appendices Group ``Type Level Indic
show all

DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?