A Cost Comparison study of the electronic tick register with a paper based tick register in clinics within the Ekurhuleni District

Abstract

Introduction & Background: A paper-based register is used to capture routine health information from Primary Health Care (PHC) clinics into the District Health Information System (DHIS) in South Africa. However, DHIS data was reportedly unreliable and inaccurate, as the paper-based system was error-prone. To address this, the Ekurhuleni Health District in the Gauteng Department of Health (GDOH) developed and piloted an electronic (E-tick) PHC register in three of its facilities. Upon completing the pilot in 2019, the implementation of this system was halted as it was not incorporated into the GDOH budget, partly due to inadequate information on its costs compared to the paper-based system. Aim: This study aims to cost and compare the expenditure of the electronic tick register and the paper-based tick register systems and determine provider views on their use in the Ekurhuleni Health District. Methods: Two methods were used: a) a descriptive cost-comparison study of the paper-based tick and the E-tick registers from November 2017 to December 2019 and b) a descriptive cross-sectional study using interviewer-administered questionnaires about health worker experiences using both registers during the stated period. Results: The study found that the E-tick register was less costly than the paper-based register. The year 2018/19, which was the only complete financial year in the study period is used for comparison. The paper-based register cost the district R42.4 per patient, while the E-tick cost R29.9 (29.5% cheaper). Of ten study theme areas explored in the interviews, the E-tick was advantageous in eight, these were: Convenience, easy accesses, quick recording time, safe information storage, immediate data capturing, ability to add more elements, fewer errors and good font size and legibility. The paper-based register was found to be advantageous in just four study themes which were: Convenience, easy accesses, independence from electricity supply and sufficient writing space. Conclusions: The E-tick register was found to be preferred over the paper-based register as it was quicker, cheaper, and acceptable to most of the health workers who used it. These are important findings for the health district as the study generates local evidence that the Ekurhuleni Health District and the Gauteng Department of Health can use to justify investments in scaling up and sustaining locally developed innovative digital solutions such as the E-tick register. This further enables the health district to improve recording times and compliance with record management legislation.