LHW Systems Review - Oxford Policy Management

Management information systemFigure 10.2 Difference between the recorded allocation of LHW posts, bydistrict, in the PSP database (June 20008) and the districts’ reportof their allocation of LHW postsSource: PSP database January 2009, LHWP, MoH and OPM LHWP 4th Independent Evaluation.10.6.2 System developmentImproved MIS toolsA number of tools were planned during the period of this PC-1 (Table 10.3), the majority ofwhich were not developed. The survey of district managers found that 56 percent of theDPIUs were using a computerised MIS, 50 percent of which starting in 2008 and around 40percent in 2007.Table 10.3InstrumentNew Instrument: A mini-surveyinstrument using the 3rdEvaluation questionnaires foroperation at the district levelWere the new or improved MIS tools developed as planned in theStrategic Plan?Was it done? (provide some detail)These were not developed. A modified survey was conducted internally in2007 (the FPO Survey), but this was not a mini-survey instrument.New Instrument: Fleetmanagement databaseNew Instrument: Procurementmanagement databaseReview and refine the personneldatabaseFurther develop the MIS usingthe Programme's administrativeThis was not created.A logistic management manual was produced in 2005, with the support ofUNFPA. The aim was to improve the use of the current system. By 2006,250 people had been trained at the provincial and district levels. While adraft manual has been developed for health facility staff, it has not beendistributed and training has not taken place.Training in the system is important; however, the new instrument is not theinstrument that was envisaged.Computerisation of the personnel database was started, but the projecthas not been completed.The Programme Status pro forma, which records the main administrativedata of the Programme, is computerised primarily at the provincial and71