This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Public Health Information Exchange Technologies (55)

Published on in Vol 9, No 1 (2017):

Successful implementation of electronic disease reporting in Georgia

Successful implementation of electronic disease reporting in Georgia

Successful implementation of electronic disease reporting in Georgia

Authors of this article:

Lia Sanodze ;   Naile Malakmadze1 ;   Rusudan Chlikadze2 ;   Maka Tsilosani2 ;   Tamar Teimurazishvili2 ;   Tsira Napetvaridze3 ;   Natia Kartskhia3 ;   Khatuna Zakhashvili2
The full text of this article is available as a PDF download by clicking here.
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate several aspects of theelectronic disease reporting system and its abilities used in Georgia.Also, the study assessed if the system abilities are tailored to thenational surveillance requirements. User attitudes (system strengthand weaknesses) toward the system was also surveyed.IntroductionThe Ministry of Health of Georgia accepted the ElectronicIntegrated Disease Surveillance System (EIDSS) as an officialdisease reporting system in 2012. The Georgian government adoptedelectronic reporting for both veterinary and human diseases in2015. We conducted a comparative assessment of progress in theimplementation of electronic reporting.MethodsA face-to-face initial survey was conducted in 2012, a follow-upsurvey (through telephone interviews) was performed in 2016. Theinitial survey was conducted in regions that had EIDSS installedand the follow-up survey was conducted in all regions. Standardizedquestionnaires were used and data was analyzed in Epi Info.ResultsOut of 450 trained EIDSS users, 32% were interviewed in theinitial survey and 25% (of 550) EIDSS trained users were interviewedin the follow-up survey. Of 147 respondents in the initial survey and138 in the follow-up survey, 44% and 79%, believed that they wereusing EIDSS effectively, respectively. The follow-up survey showeda 23% increase in respondents who acknowledge an improvement ofthe electronic reporting; acceptance of EIDSS increased from 80.3%to 97.8%. Of those interviewed in the follow-up survey, 19.7%mentioned that the main success in development of the system is dueto improved collaboration between institutes. However, 17.36% of therespondents in the follow-up survey reported non-sufficient qualitydata.ConclusionsOur study suggests that the acceptance and use of EIDSS hasnoticeably improved, indicating the successful implementation ofelectronic reporting. Recommendations have been made to furtherimprove the data quality by conducting regular data cleaning andadditional user training. We recommend the continuation of EIDSStraining.