DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District 5.5 Delivery rate in facility Peter Barron This indicator measures the proportion of all expected births that take place in the public health facilities under the supervision of a trained professional i.e. a doctor or a trained nursing midwife. It is an expression of access to the public sector facilities as well as utilisation of these by pregnant women as opposed to giving birth at home. It is one of the indicators in Improving Maternal Health, which is Goal Number 5 of the Millennium Development Goals. This indicator is highly sensitive to the denominator, which is directly linked to the total number of children under one year old in the district as an estimate of expected deliveries in the district. There have been problems with these figures due to known under-counting of these children in both the 1996 and 2001 censuses. Substantial corrections were made to the under one year old population estimates for 2005/06 by the national Department of Health after the 2005/06 DHB was published in February 2007. Comparing this DHB (2006/07) with the 2005/06 DHB will thus show different figures for the populations of children under one year old as well as for the delivery coverage rates for the 2005/06 financial year. The updated values are in this years’ (2006/07) DHB as well as in the data file of the DHB CD, which accompanies the book. District View Map 22 and Figure 110 show the delivery rates in facilities in the 52 districts in South Africa. During the 2006/07 year the average delivery rate in a facility in SA was 77.7%. There was a wide range with Alfred Nzo (EC) and Namakwa (NC) below 50% at the low end and six districts, three each from the Northern Cape and Western Cape, above 100%. Twenty four districts had coverage rates of 80% or more, 14 had rates of between 70% and 80% with another 13 districts with rates of less than 70%. All the districts in the Western Cape and Limpopo provinces had coverage rates of more than 80% while all the districts in the North West and Eastern Cape provinces had coverage rates of less than 80%. In the other provinces there was wide intra-provincial variation. Map 22: Delivery rate in facilities in South Africa, 2006/07 Delivery rate in facility, 2006/07 Legend DEL_06 no data / no hospitals under 60 % 60 % - 69 % 70 % - 79 % 80 % - 89 % 90 % and over THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST 111
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District Figure 110: Delivery rate in facility by district, 2006/07 Delivery rate in facility, 2006/07 South Africa Eden Cape Winelands Kgalagadi Sisonke Frances Baard West Coast Pixley ka Seme Greater Sekhukhune Lejweleputswa City of Cape Town Uthukela Ekurhuleni Central Karoo Ehlanzeni UMgungundlovu Umzinyathi Waterberg Vhembe Capricorn Sedibeng West Rand Uthungulu Mopani Motheo Central Ugu Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Gert Sibande Southern Thabo Mofutsanyane eThekwini Nkangala Bojanala Fezile Dabi Umkhanyakude City of Tshwane Cacadu O.R. Tambo Siyanda Overberg Bophirima Ukhahlamba City of Johannesburg Xhariep Chris Hani Amajuba Amathole iLembe Zululand Namakwa Alfred Nzo Metsweding No district hospitals 120.8 115.2 107.1 105.4 103.9 100.2 EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Metro View The metro average rate of 78.6% of deliveries in facilities is slightly above the SA average with City of Cape Town and Ekurhuleni having delivery rates of close to 90%. The City of Johannesburg had a particularly low delivery rate of 66.5% and this is almost certainly due to data quality issues in this very urbanised city. 112 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:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 123: 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 175 and 176:
Section B: District and Province Pr
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?