i
IMPROVING THE DATA MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
OF THE RAKAI HEALTH SCIENCES PROGRAM
HIV CARE FIELD CLINICS
BY
MARIA MUKAKALISA
AND JOSEPH SSEKASANVU
CDC MEDIUM-TERM FELLOWS
2012
ii
IMPROVING THE DATA MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
OF THE RAKAI HEALTH SCIENCES PROGRAM
HIV CARE FIELD CLINICS
BY
MARIA MUKAKALISA (MSc. HSM)
AND JOSEPH SSEKASANVU (BSc.QE)
CDC MEDIUM-TERM FELLOWS
OCTOBER 2012
i
Table of Contents Declaration ............................................................................................................................................. iii
Fellow’s role in project implementation ................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. v
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... vii
1.0: CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1: Background to fellows’ project ...................................................................................................... 8
1.2: Background to the Institution ....................................................................................................... 2
1.3: Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.4: Justification of the project ............................................................................................................ 3
1.5: General objective .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.6: Specific objectives ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.0: CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 5
2.1: Area of operation.......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2: Population served ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.3: Logical framework........................................................................................................................ 5
2.4: Project implementation ................................................................................................................ 6
2.4.1: Reviewed data collection and reporting tools to identify key similarities and gaps with MoH
recommended tools ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.4.2: Data entry screens designing ..................................................................................................... 7
2.4.3: M&E Fellows and MoH staff trained clinicians on the use of the new tools. ............................... 8
3.0: CHAPTER THREE.............................................................................................................................. 11
3.1: Project Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.2: Lessons learnt ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.3: Challenges .................................................................................................................................. 12
3.4: Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 13
3.5: Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.6: Next steps ................................................................................................................................... 13
3.6.1: Dissemination plan .................................................................................................................. 13
3.6.2: Follow-up/scale-up strategy ..................................................................................................... 13
Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 14
ii
Appendix 1: Logical framework for the project............................................................................... 14
Appendix 2: Rakai Districtmap indicating the sub-counties ................................................................ 15
Appendix 3: Work-Plan ...................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 4: Budget for Improving the Data management system of the RHSPHIV care field clinics . 17
List of Tables
Table 1: Blueprint: Improving the data management system in the HIV care field clinics ......................................... 4
Table 2: Current status of RHSP data collection tools ............................................................................................. 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Data Entry in HIV Care field clinics (Jan 2011 - March 2012)................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Clients in RHSP HIV care fields .............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3: Review and revision of tools .................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Data entry screens designing ................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Training on paper based tools ................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Training in data entry ........................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Proportion of data entered in the RHSP HIV care field clinics ............................................................... 11
iii
Declaration We Ssekasanvu Joseph and Mukakalisa Maria do hereby declare that this end-of-project report
entitled Improving the data management system of the Rakai Health Sciences Program
HIV care field clinics, has been prepared and submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the
Medium-term Fellowship Program at Makerere University School of Public Health and has not
been submitted for any academic or non-academic qualifications.
Signed ………………………………… Date…………………………………..
Ssekasanvu Joseph, Medium-term Fellow
Signed ………………………………… Date…………………………………….
Mukakalisa Maria, Medium-term Fellow
Signed ………………………………… Date…………………………………..
Dr. Kigozi Godfrey Institution Mentor
Signed ………………………………… Date…………………………………..
Dr. Nakigozi Gertrude Institution Mentor
Signed ………………………………… Date…………………………………..
Dr. Nampewo Solome Academic Mentor
iv
Fellow’s role in project implementation
The fellows participated in all the activities of this project from beginning to date.
Fellows developed the concept and shared it with the HIV care team for review and suggestions.
At the phase of problem identification, the fellows were key in this process but in constant
consultation with the HIV care team. Project proposal development was done by both fellows.
They presented the proposal to the team of supervisors and fellow trainees and this helped in the
modification of the proposal. Review of the indicators of the various stake holders in line with
MoH HIV care tools was done by one of the fellows (Maria Mukakalisa) and this resulted in
revision of the old tools. Designing of the new data collection tools was done by both fellows.
Designing data entry screens of the revised tools was done by the other fellow (Joseph
Ssekasanvu). Training clinicians on the revised tools and entry screens was done by both fellows,
with the help of MoH trainers. Mentorship (coaching) was done by the fellows and the MoH
supervisors.
Preparation of Power point presentation and final report was done by the fellows, in consultation
with the supervisors.
v
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the following for their contribution towards the successful
implementation of this project.
The Facilitators & staff of MakSPH-CDC Medium-Term Fellowship program; our academic
mentor, Dr Nampewo Solome; the institutional supervisors, Drs Kigozi Godfrey and Nakigozi
Gertrude; RHSP HIV care administrators, staff and the clients
vi
Acronyms
RHSP: Rakai Health Science Program
MoH: Ministry of Health
OpenMRS: Open Medical Records System
CME: Continuing Medical Education
vii
Executive Summary
Rakai Health Sciences Program provides HIV care services through 13 field based clinics. The
clinics are managed by clinicians who are supposed to do general clinic management in addition
to data management. This resulted in creation of data entry backlogs leading to late and poor
quality reports.
To solve this problem, the fellows took on the role of improving data management system of the
RHSP HIV care clinics. This was done by revision of RHSP data collection tools which included
size reduction, dropping and designing new tools. We also adopted the MoH HIV care data
collection tools. Data entry screens for the new RHSP tools were designed and adopted
OpenMRS for entry of MoH data collection tools. Training was done for the data collection tools
and data entry systems.
As a result, there was a remarkable improvement in data entry rate (50%) during the period July-
September 2012 as compared to the period April- June 2011 (23%), before project
implementation. Clinicians also reported that the new forms were easier to complete and to enter,
and this availed more time for review of clients and other clinic activities. There was noticeable
decrease in paper consumption in the HIV care program because of the reduced number and size
of some tools and use of HIV care cards that can handle multiple encounter data. Decrease in
storage space needs for patient files in the clinics. This intervention aimed at improving the
timeliness and quality of reports.
In conclusion, implementation of this project resulted in efficient data collection tools, improved
data entry rate, adoption of MoH HIV care tools, which would ease the process of integration of
RHSP HIV care services into MoH system.
viii
1.0: CHAPTER ONE 1.1: Background to fellows’ project
Recent changes to Rakai Health Sciences HIV Care program guidelines raised hope that the
national goal of increasing enrollment into HIV Care from 63% (RHSP rate - June 2011) to more
than 80% (one of the Millennium Development Goals) could be attained. The HIV Care program
relies on a sequence of diagnostic and treatment steps. Tracking each of these steps can
determine how well the system is performing; i.e. that eligible HIV infected clients are being
identified, and are receiving the appropriate care and treatment. While programmatic efforts to
reach this target are underway, obtaining complete data from RHSP HIV Care field clinics to
track progress presented a major challenge.
The origin of the problem started when RHSP had to change the mode of HIV care service
delivery from mobile to static clinics, as a result of decreased PEPFAR funding. Data entry
clerks who were doing data entry were laid off and clinicians who were the in-charges of the
field clinics were responsible for the review of the clients, general administration of the clinics,
drug stock management, data management, etc. This affected the completeness of data from the
field clinics. (See figure 1)
Figure 1: Data Entry in HIV Care field clinics (Jan 2011 - March 2012)
2
During the period Jan to Mar 2011, the new mode of HIV care service delivery was implemented
(mobile to static field clinics). This involved assigning clinicians to the various static clinics and
training of staff in the different roles they had to perform; which roles were originally handled by
other staff who had been laid off or re-located to other sections. One of the roles the clinicians
took on was data management, which they had never done before. All clinicians had basic
computer skills and were all trained in data entry and other data management tasks. The
clinicians were not able to enter any data in the period Jan-Mar 2011 because of unavailability of
computers and delay in electric power installation at the field hubs. In order to have data for
compilation of various reports, the RHSP contracted data entrants to enter the data as an
emergency.
Clinicians started on data entry in April 2011 and by the end of September 2011, a verification
exercise showed that clinicians had only entered 40% of the data collected for the two reporting
periods (April-June 2011 and July-September 2011) contracted data entrants had to completed
entry of the pending records to enable reporting.
Oct 2011- Mar 2012, Clinicians had gained experience but had reached a peak in data entry
(60%). Clinicians could not complete data entry despite the fact that they had gained speed and
experience. This was because of the many and lengthy forms used in data collection combined
with other clinic roles e.g. patient management and drug management.
1.2: Background to the Institution
Rakai Health Sciences Program is a research-based organization which started in 1988, as Rakai
Project; with the discovery of HIV (SLIM) disease in Kasensero-Rakai district. From 1988 to
2004, RHSP was providing HIV care in the “Suubi” (Hope) clinics but no provision of ARVs.
Since June 2004, with funding from the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR), the Rakai Health Sciences Program (RHSP) has cumulatively provided HIV care to
about 5500 individuals, including ART to approximately 2500 HIV-infected persons, with a
CD4≤250 cells/mm3 or WHO Stage IV disease. HIV care was formerly provided via 17 mobile
community-based out-patient clinics, called Suubi clinics, operated on a bi-weekly basis. These
clinics included; Kalisizo, Kabira, Nabigasa, Kasaali, Lwanda, Kasasa, Kakuuto, Kifamba,
Kibaale, Lwamaggwa, Buyamba, Kyebe, Kyabigondo, Kayanja, Nakatoogo, Kaleere and
Lyantonde. From the start of the HIV Care program in 2004 up to 31st December 2010, the
service component and data collection was solely the work of the field clinicians, Data entry and
validation was solely the work of the RHSP Data management section. At the beginning of 2011,
the 17 mobile clinics were reduced to 13 static clinics and all the clients in the closed 4 hubs
(Kyabigondo, Kayanja, Nakatoogo and Kaleere) were absorbed in the nearby clinics. In the new
system, all data entry and validation together with HIV-Care service provision became the work
of the clinicians based at the 13 RHSP designated rural health centers in Rakai.
3
1.3: Problem Statement
In order to have timely and good quality reports, there needs to be real time, accurate and
complete data entry. This makes it possible to have timely data cleaning, analysis, and generation
of timely and good quality reports. In the current situation, there is delayed, incomplete and
inaccurate data entry by the end of the reporting period. Clinicians first collect data on paper,
then enter the data later, which is double work. In addition, the many tasks performed by a
clinician in a day lead to data entry being given the last priority. There is thus creation of backlog
which leads to emergency data entry with its related problems, such as; incompleteness and
inaccuracy of data.
For example, in the period, April-June 2011, clinicians entered only 15% of the data collected
and an emergency team of data entry clerks entered 65%. However, the target has always been to
have all data entered by the field clinicians without the emergency data entry team. The accuracy
of the data entered for this reporting period was only 55%. This was because the data was
hurriedly entered by an emergency data entry team and no validation done because of the
approaching deadline for reporting. This led to late submission of the CDC-PEPFAR and MOH
reports.
Delay in submission of reports will not only lead to late and poor feedback to field data
managers, late and poor planning for supplies but may also lead to frustration/ disappointment to
funders who can decide to reduce or completely stop funding the program.
As a result of the delay in submission of reports to stakeholders, the M&E team embarked on a
project of improving on the existing data management system in the RHSP HIV care clinics with
a major aim of improving on the timeliness and quality of reports generated for submission.
1.4: Justification of the project
Generation and submission of timely and good quality reports on activities carried out by any
institution/ individual is a standard practice and a requirement.
In order to keep up with timely reporting as required by funders, there was a need to find ways
of improving and strengthening the current monitoring system of the HIV Care program; with
focus on data collection and capture by the clinicians.
Thus, the project focused on the modification of the data collection tools and data entry system;
and equipping the staff with the data management skills to do timely and efficient data entry.
1.5: General objective
To improve the data collection and reporting system in order to be able to submit quality HIV
care reports to different stakeholders in a timely manner.
4
1.6: Specific objectives
To review data collection and reporting tools in reference to the national MoH guidelines
on comprehensive HIV care.
To review and redesign the computerized database
To strengthen capacity through training and mentoring staff on the revised data collection
and reporting system
The detailed information on the priority given to accomplishment of the various objectives and
their time allocation is given in table 1.
Table 1: Blueprint: Improving the data management system in the HIV care field clinics
PRIORITY % ASPECT
1 40 M&E Fellows revised the RHSP data collection tools with reference to
MoH tools in order to collect data on only the needed indicators
(reduced to shorter forms).
2 25 M&E Fellows redesigned data entry screens for the revised data
collection tools
3 35 M&E fellows trained clinicians on the use of the revised tools and data
entry screens. MoH trainers trained staff on the use of the MoH tools
5
2.0: CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY 2.1: Area of operation
This project was conducted in RHSP HIV field clinics located at some of the sub-county
headquarters in Rakai district. These clinics include: Kasasa, Kasaali, Kyebe, Kasensero,
Buyamba, Lwanda, Nabigasa, Kabira, Lwamaggwa, Kakuuto, Kifamba and Kalisizo clinic that
is located at the RHSP Kalisizo office. Refer to the Map of Rakai district and the sub counties
(See appendix 2).
2.2: Population served
The clients served in the RHSP HIV care program by March 2012 were 6,024.
During the period April-June 2011, the total number of clients in all the HIV care clinics was
5358, 44.8% (2401/5358) of those were on ART. The client population in the various RHSP
clinics and their ART status is indicated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Clients in RHSP HIV care fields
2.3: Logical framework
The logical framework for implementation of this project is detailed in appendix 1.
6
2.4: Project implementation
2.4.1: Reviewed data collection and reporting tools to identify key similarities
and gaps with MoH recommende d tools
During the month of January 2012, the fellows reviewed all the RHSP data collection tools and
highlighted the duplicated indicators on the various forms. The fellows then reviewed indicators
for reporting to the various stakeholders (e.g. CDC, MEEPP, and RHSP) in relation to the MoH
HIV care tools, since it was a requirement for RHSP to adopt the MoH HIV care tools (see figure
3). This was meant to prepare for integration of the HIV care services into the MoH system. The
review of indicators was done in consultation with the RHSP HIV care program coordinators, to
take into account the research and service interests.
Figure 3: Review and revision of tools
7
During this review, we identified indicators required by other stake holders but not addressed by
MoH HIV care tools. A new tool, the RHSP HIV Care Card (Addendum) was designed (March
2012), to address the desired indicators. This form (the addendum) was designed in a format
similar to the MoH HIV Care/ ART card; having many encounters and used by both Pre-ART
and ART clients. . Redundant and duplicated indicators were removed from the forms and this
resulted in re-designing or modification of the RHSP forms to come up with shorter and more
user friendly forms. Other forms were dropped completely (see table 2 for details).
Table 2: Current status of RHSP data collection tools
Forms # of Pages
A) Re-designed (3) Original Current
Screening form 3 1
Clinical assessment 8 5
Lab monitoring card 1 1
B) New (1)
HIV Care card-Addendum 1
C) Adopted
MoH HIV Care tools
D) Dropped (7)
Clinical Follow Up
Patient Medical List
PMTCT
Pre-ART summary card
ART summary card
Information sheet for ART initiation
Drug tracking form for children
2.4.2: Data entry screens designing
As far as data entry was concerned, we designed and tested the data entry screens for the RHSP
revised tools in Visual FoxPro (see figure 4) and adopted the OpenMRS entry system for the
MoH data collection tools.
8
Figure 4: Data entry screens designing
2.4.3: M&E Fellows and MoH staff trained clinicians on the use of the new tools.
At the beginning of April 2012, we organized a 4-day staff training on the Paper based tools; the
revised RHSP and adopted MoH tools. We invited MoH trainers to train the team on the MoH
tools and the fellows trained the team on the RHSP revised tools. The training was well attended
and it went on successfully. We started collection of data on the new tools the day after end of
training. Figure 6 shows HIV care staff in a training session on paper-based tools (RHSP and
MoH HIV tools), facilitated by the fellows and MoH training team.
9
Figure 5: Training on paper based tools
The fellows then started on the mentorship (coaching) exercise and monitoring on the
progress of the use of the new forms. As the field team used the forms, we received
feedback on the forms which we acted upon. A month later, (May 2012), we invited the
MoH trainers to join the fellows for a 4-day mentorship visit to all the RHSP HIV care
clinics. The MoH mentorship team gave immediate feedback to the staff and also gave a
de-brief and a written report to the RHSP HIV Care coordination team.
In June 2012, training on the data entry screens was conducted (see figure 6). We invited
the MoH team to train the staff in the OpenMRS while the fellows trained the staff on the
Visual Foxpro entry screens for the revised RHSP forms. During the training, we
experienced challenges with OpenMRS software compatibility with the laptops’
operating system. This disorganized the training and delayed the entry of the data in the
OpenMRS system after the training.
10
Figure 6: Training in data entry
Data entry started late July 2012 in some few clinics where the OpenMRS software was
successfully installed. As the clinicians started on data entry, the fellows and the HIV care data
manager went to the field for mentoring and coaching.
In August 2012 we received a mentor from MoH who joined the fellows in the mentorship
exercise.
11
3.0: CHAPTER THREE During the mentorship visits, inconsistencies identified on the forms by the mentorship team
were worked upon by the staff. Data entry gaps identified by the mentorship team were also
discussed and worked upon by the staff.
The team then assessed the progress of data entry for the July-Sept 2012 quarter. The details of
the data entry assessment are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Proportion of data entered in the RHSP HIV care field clinics
During the period, Apr-Jun 2011, clinicians started on data entry on old tools. This progressed at
a slow rate and by the end of the quarter, only 23% of the data collected during this period was
entered. In the next quarter, July-Sept 2011, the rate of data entry increased to 40%. For the next
two reporting periods (Oct-Dec 2011 and Jan-Mar 2012), despite the data management skills
attained by the clinicians, data entry rate stagnated at 60%. This data entry stagnation prompted
the fellows to hold a discussion with the clinic team. The discussion revealed that the data
collection tools were many and lengthy resulting in spending a lot of time on patients and entry
as well. The fellows then took up the task to review and develop efficient data collection tools.
In the period Apr- June 2012, clinicians were trained on the use of the new data collection tools
12
and data entry. Thus clinicians could not enter any data during this period because after training
on paper based forms, they had to complete the MoH HIV care card for every client under RHSP
HIV care. Data entry was further delayed by the OpenMRS software incompatibility with many
of the field clinic laptops.
Data entry on the new tools started late July 2012 and by Sept 2012, 50% of the data collected in
the quarter had been entered, which was a remarkable improvement in data entry rate. Clinicians
reported that the new forms were easier to complete and enter and this availed more time for
review of clients and other clinic activities. Basing on the remarkable improvement in data entry
rate, fellows project that by March 2013, clinicians would be in position to enter all the data
collected in a quarter.
3.1: Project Outcomes
There was noticeable decrease in paper consumption in the HIV care program because of the
reduced number and size of some tools and use of HIV care cards that can handle multiple
encounter data.
There was a remarkable improvement in data entry rate (50%) during the period July-September
2012 as compared to the period April- June 2011 (23%), before project implementation.
3.2: Lessons learnt
Advocacy skills are essential for acceptability of the project
Constant consultation with different stakeholders is essential for the success of the project
Having a positive attitude towards project implementation is key for success of the project
For the success of the project, there is need to dedicate ample time from start to end.
3.3: Challenges
The conflict between research and service component presented a problem in review of
indicators. This was overcome by the constant consultation with RHSP HIV Care service team
and staff from other RHSP departments.
We also experienced limited time for this project due to other RHSP commitments. This was
overcome by working overtime to accomplish both RHSP and fellows’ project demands.
At the period of training in the OpenMRS data entry system, we faced a challenge of the
incompatibility of the OpenMRS software with many of the field laptops’ operating systems
which disorganized the training and delayed the implementation of OpenMRS data entry in the
field clinics. We overcame this by constant consultation with RHSP IT experts and continuous
field support supervision visits by the HIV care data manager and the fellows. .
13
3.4: Conclusions
In the implementation of this project, we managed to accomplish the following: Data collection
tools were revised which resulted in the development of efficient data collection tools.
We also adopted the MoH HIV care tools, which was a requirement by MoH, in preparation for
integration.
3.5: Recommendations
To RHSP
Fellows recommend that more staff should be sent for the M&E course in order to
strengthen the M&E system at RHSP and also to ensure continuity in case the current
M&E staff leave or are assigned other duties
To assign a budget to M&E activities since M&E is an essential component in the
implementation of any project.
To MakSPH-CDC Fellowship Program:
To Increase the number of trainees admitted to the fellowship program so that more people get
the chance of gaining these very essential skills
3.6: Next steps
3.6.1: Dissemination plan
Final dissemination workshop on 5th Oct 2012 at Imperial Royal Hotel to the facilitators,
funders, administrators and supervisors at RHSP, other implementing partners, MoH, the
alumni MakSPH fellows and other interested partners
3.6.2: Follow-up/scale-up strategy
We plan to continue with the following:
• To provide continuous monitoring and support supervision to all field clinics.
• To have data management officers train further on OpenMRS (e.g screen
designing )
• To evaluate the effect of the project on timeliness and quality of reports
• To design an automated data capture (ADC) system on RHSP revised forms and
pilot it in 3 of the 13 hubs
14
Appendices Appendix 1: Logical framework for the project
Summary OVIs MOVs Assumptions/Risks
Goal Timely and
improved
quality in HIV
Care reporting
Late submissions of HIV
Care reports reduced to
0% by the end of
December 2012
Date of submission of
reports to stakeholder
(RHSP, MoH,
CDC/PEPFAR, and
MEEPP) in comparison
to submission deadlines
Purpose/
Objective
Increased good
quality data
capture by 95%
HIV Care clinicians to
have all current reporting
period data entered and
validated one week after
end of reporting period
Data authenticity checks
and reports from staff on
backlogs.
No power charging
problems and no
breakdown of
laptops
Outputs Revised and
simplified HIV
Care data
collection forms
All HIV Care data
collection forms to be
reviewed and ready for
use by end of March 2012
Presence of modified
tools
Authentic technical
expertise
Designed data
entry screens for
the new forms
Entry screen application
to be developed and ready
for use by end of March
2012
Presence and use of an
the new data entry
application in all clinics
Authentic technical
expertise
Strategies
/Activities
Train and
retrain
clinicians on the
revised data
collection tools
and data entry
screens
All HIV Care field
clinicians trained by end
of March 2012
Training schedule,
attendance lists and
training reports
Assume complete
attendance
15
KYEBE
L a k e V i c t o r i a
KABIRA
KAKUUTO
KIBANDA
KYALULANGIRA
KACHEERA
LWAMAGGWA
LWANDA
KASASA
KASAALI
KALISIZO
DDWANIRO
KIRUMBA
NABIGASA
KIFAMBA
BYAKABANDA
LWANKONI
KAGAMBA
RAKAI TC
KYOTERA TC
¯
KM0 10 20
Population Density
Persons per Sq Km
16 - 84
85 - 181
182 - 289
290 - 1728
Water Body
Appendix 2: Rakai Districtmap indicating the sub-counties
16
Appendix 3: Work-Plan
Activity Oct
2011
Nov
2011
Dec
2011
Jan
2012
Feb
2012
Mar
2012
Apr
2012
May
2012
Jun
2012
Jul
2012
Aug
2012
Sept
2012
Oct
2012
Revision of
tools
X X
Automated
application
development
X X
Revision of
SOPs
X X
Training X
Pilot X X X
Evaluation
of the
intervention
X
Reporting
writing
X X
17
Appendix 4: Budget for Improving the Data management system of the RHSPHIV care field clinics
ITEM
QUANTIT
Y
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
SOURCE OF FUNDS
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION
COMBINED CDC RHSP
A STATIONERY
1 REAMS OF PAPERS 6 20,000 120,000 RHSP - 120,000 For printing forms used in clincs and training
2 FLASH DISCS (8GB) 2 50,000 100,000 RHSP - 100,000 For data storage and transfer, to be used by any staff
3 PENS (BOX-BLACK) 1 15,000 15,000 RHSP - 15,000 For use by trainees and fellows
4 NOTEBOOKS 40 3,000 120,000 RHSP - 120,000 For use by trainees and fellows
5 MARKERS(BOX) 2 15,000 30,000 RHSP - 30,000 For use in training and marking files
6 FLIPCHARTS(ROLLS) 3 20,000 60,000 RHSP - 60,000 For use in training
7 SPIRAL BINDERS 40 2,000 80,000 RHSP - 80,000 For binding training material and SOPs
8 SPIRAL BINDER COVERS 80 2,000 160,000
RHSP
- 160,000 For binding training material and SOPs
9 LAPTOPS 2 1,600,000 3,200,000 CDC 3,200,000 - For the fellows/ M&E staff
10 PRINTER Catridge 1 600,000 600,000
CDC
600,000 - For printing forms and training material
11
APPLICATION
DEVELOPMENT FOR
DATA ENTRY 1 1,000,000 1,000,000
CDC
1,000,000 - To be out-sourced from private providers
SUBTOTAL 5,485,000 CDC/RHSP 4,800,000 685,000
B STAFF TRAINING
1 TRANSPORT REFUND 20 20,000 400,000 CDC 400,000 - For trainees , their field stations are far from Kalisizo
2 PERDIEM 20 30,000 600,000 CDC 600,000 - For trainees , their field stations are far from Kalisizo
3 ACCOMODATION 20 40,000 800,000 CDC 800,000 - For trainees , their field stations are far from Kalisizo
4 MEALS/REFRESHMENTS 40 5,000 200,000 CDC 200,000 - For trainees , their field stations are far from Kalisizo
SUBTOTAL 2,000,000 CDC 2,000,000 -
C
COMMUNICATION AND
TRANSPORT
1 AIRTIME (5 MONTHS) 10 50,000 500,000 CDC 500,000 - To communicate to trainees, fellow staff and mentors
2
TRANSPORT-FOR
FELLOWS 1000 3,500 3,500,000
RHSP
3,500,000 To visit field clinics for implementation and support supervision
3 INTERNET MODEM 2 100,000 200,000
CDC
200,000 -
For use outside office premises, likely to work off station most
of the times
18
4
SERVICE FEE FOR
MODEMS(6 months) 2 150,000 300,000
CDC
300,000 - service fee for modems for at least 6 months
SUB TOTAL 4,500,000 CDC/ RHSP 1,000,000 3,500,000
SUBTOTAL (all items/
activities) 11,985,000
7,800,000 4,185,000
D Contingency 5% 599,250
CDC/RHSP
390,000 209,250
GRAND TOTAL(all items/
activities) 12,584,250
CDC/RHSP
8,190,000 4,394,250