Attribute | Indicators | Results (%) | Evaluation |
---|---|---|---|
Simplicity (April-June 2019)* | Awareness of key informants on case definition for leprosy case suspect | 81% (21/26) | Good |
Proportion of key informants who found it easy to fill patient form | 69% (18/26) Correct reporting | ||
Flexibility (April 2018-March 2019) | Change in reporting format during the reference period | New variable (patient from other state) added in reporting format in April 2018 | Flexible |
Change in the reporting frequency and mechanism (paper/electronic) | No change (block and district level) | ||
Data quality - (Completeness)(April 2019-June 2019) | Proportion of completed MPR | None (0/12) | Poor |
Acceptability (April-June 2019) | Proportion of health facilities reporting through routine surveillance (paper based) | 100% (12/12) | Good |
Predictive value positive (April-June 2019) | Proportion of cases confirmed by MO’s or assistant MO’s in district and block | District 12.5% (40/320) Block 5.2% (8/154) | Poor |
Representativeness (April-June 2019) | Proportion of private facilities reporting in NLEP | None | Poor |
Timeliness (April-June 2019) | Proportion of reports received on time at block, district and state | 100% | Good |
Stability (April -June 2019) | Proportion of NLEP DEO (data entry operator) trained | None Non-Medical Assistant (NMA) compiles the collected data at block | Not Stable |
Usefulness (April 2016-March 2019) | Surveillance system helping in doing contact tracing | Routine surveillance and leprosy case detection campaign helped in detecting cases among contacts | Good |