Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
MFL that in some countries is a document (a pdf or Ms Excel file or Ms Word document) developed and maintained by a department in the ministry of health. Not many entities are involved in this endeavor. The problem with that is, the stakeholders who are not involved are not aware of this registry. Even when they are aware, they have no input in the process of its development or its update. The result is, they maintain their own ‘mini MFL’ that they trust and serves their needs. This process undermines a truly master and authoritative national registry of health facilities where everyone can draw from.
The other important registry is the patient registry. Many countries are either setting up or scaling up EMRs. For these to work efficiently and in support of health facility workflows, each patient must be uniquely identified in the system through a non-volatile method. That is where patient registry comes in. Unfortunately, there are a few success stories in developing countries where this has worked well. Im aware of a country that uses that national ID as the same patient ID. In other countries, national ID cannot be used for obvious reasons. Bottom line is, country players need to come together and agree on a method to uniquely identify the patients.
-
What I have learnt in a number of countries is that, before we can work the technical aspects of interoperability, we need to first ‘interoperate’ the stakeholders – especially those that wield money and power. The major stakeholders include obviously the government, the donors, the Implementing partners and the private sector. These have to come to the table and agree on the interoperability as a concept, a plan of action and rally their support behind a national interoperability plan. Without this type of agreement and commitment, we shall be making three steps forward and 4 backwards and meaningful interoperability will remain a mirage.
-
