The document discusses data quality reviews (DQR) which have two components: data verification and system assessment. Data verification examines reporting accuracy by reviewing source documents and comparing recounted data to reported data. System assessment reviews the adequacy of data collection, reporting, analysis and use. Facilities and districts are surveyed. Data verification calculates a verification factor to indicate over or under-reporting. System assessment identifies areas of weakness like lack of guidelines, training or supervision. Findings are analyzed by facility type, ownership, location to identify areas for improvement.

1. Data Quality
Review (DQR)
Data verification and
system
assessment

2. 2
Facility Survey Component of DQR
There are 2 components:
― Data verification – Examines the accuracy of reporting of selected indicators,
by reviewing source documents
― System assessment -- Review adequacy of system to collect, compile,
transmit, analyze, and use HMIS & program data
 Survey at 2 levels
― Health facility
― District

3. 3
Accuracy: Data Verification
Quantitative:
Compares recounted to reported
data
Implement in 2 stages
Assess on a limited
scale if sites are
collecting and
reporting data
accurately and on
time
In-depth verifications at
the service delivery sites
Follow-up verifications at
the intermediate and
central levels
3

4. 4
Data Verification Following Data Flow
4

5. 5
Accuracy: Verification Factor
Verification Factor
Numerator: Recounted data
Denominator: Reported data
 Over-reporting: <100%
 Under-reporting: >100%
Suggested range of
acceptability:
100% +/- 10%
(90% –110%)
5

6. 6
Verification factor
 Weighted mean of verification ratios
 Summarizes information on the reliability of reporting of the
data reporting system
 Indicates the degree of over-/under-reporting in the system
― e.g. VF = 0.80 indicates that of the total reported number of
events, approximately 80% could be verified in source
documents -> over-reporting

7. 7
Verification Factor Example
v
Indicator 1 Indicator 2
Recounted Reported VF Recounted Reported VF
A 1212 1065 1.14 4009 4157 0.96
B 1486 1276 1.16 3518 3686 0.95
C 357 387 0.92 672 779 0.86
D 2987 3849 0.78 1361 1088 1.25
E 4356 4509 0.97 4254 3970 1.07
Data accuracy by district
Indicators flagged in red are verification factors ≥ ±10% of 1.
7

8. 8
Verification Factors Plotted Graphically
over-reported
underreported
8

9. 9
Data verification
Recommended maximum 5 indicators for review
—ANC1, DTP3/Penta 3, ART coverage, TB cases, malaria
cases (confirmed)
Select a time period for the verification (3 months)
— e.g. : July, August, September 2016
For each indicator:
—Review the source documents and reports
—Recount the number of events
—Compare the recount to the reported events
—Determine reasons for any discrepancies

10. 10
System Assessment Indicators
Indicator
Level
Facility District
Presence of trained staff X X
Presence of guidelines X X
No recent stock out of data collection tools X X
Recently received supervision and written feedback X X
Evidence of analysis and use data X X

11. 11
System assessment findings by type of facility and
ownership
Facility type Ownership
Health
post
Health
centre
Hospital
Public
Private
Overall
Number of facilities n=340 n=635 n=182 n=784 n=342 n=1150
% facilities with guidelines 66 63 36 54 61 57
% facilities with trained staff 49 47 26 41 45 42
% facilities without stock-out
of forms
88 77 57 73 73 73
% facilities receiving
supervision and feedback
48 20 2 14 20 16
% of facilities analyzing and
using data
45 43 20 38 47 37
% had all criteria 17 3 0 2 4 2
% mean of items 65 49 33 44 50 46
Overall score 30 44 17 37 32 35

12. 12
If the sampling permits it,
system assessment findings can be disaggregated by
strata
Facility type Ownership Location
Health
post
Health
centre
Hospital
Public
Private
Urban
Rural
Overall
Number of facilities
n=
340
n=
635
n=
182
n=
784
n=
342
n=
198
n=
1,105
n=
1,150
% with guidelines 66 63 36 54 61 69 54 57
% with trained staff 49 47 26 41 45 56 39 42
% without stock-out of
forms
88 77 57 73 73 73 73 73
% receiving supervision
and feedback
48 20 2 14 20 22 15 16
% analyzing and using
data
45 43 20 38 47 56 33 37
Had all criteria 17 3 0 2 4 4 2 2
Mean of items 65 49 33 44 50 54 44 46
Overall score 30 44 17 37 32 38 34 35