A qualitative exploration of forensic pathology service staff perceptions of the implementation barriers and facilitators of manual- and electronic injury mortality surveillance system methods in South Africa

Abstract

Background Injury mortality surveillance systems are critical to monitor changes in a population’s injury outcomes so that relevant injury prevention responses may be adopted. This is particularly the case in South Africa, where the injury burden is nearly twice the global rate. Regular evaluations of surveillance systems are pivotal to strengthening surveillance capacity, performance, and cost effectiveness. The National Injury Mortality Surveillance System (NIMSS) is an injury mortality surveillance system that is currently focused in Mpumalanga and utilises manual and electronic web-based systems for data collection. This study explored Forensic Pathology Service (FPS) staff perceptions of the implementation barriers and facilitators of manual- and electronic injury mortality surveillance system methods. Methods A qualitative study was employed using purposive sampling. Forty-seven participants, aged 29 to 59 years comprising 31 males and 16 females were recruited across 21 FPS facilities that serve the province. The formative evaluation occurred over the November 2019 to November 2022 period. Twelve focus group discussions were thematically analysed to determine emerging themes and patterns related to the use of the system using the WHO surveillance system guidelines as a framework. Results The key themes concerning the barriers and facilitators were located along WHO attributes of simplicity, acceptability, timeliness, flexibility, data quality and stability. Distinctions between the manual and e-surveillance systems were drawn upon across the attributes highlighting their experience with the system, user preference, and its contextual relevance. With Mpumalanga predominantly rural, internet connectivity was a common issue, with most participants consequently showing a preference for the manual system, even though the electronic system’s automated internal validation process was of benefit. The data quality however remained similar for both methods. With program stability and flexibility, the manual system proved more beneficial as the dataset was reported to be easily transferrable across computer devices.