Skip to main content

Table 2 Performance of state (out of 10) in surveillance and EBS as scored by the visited teams, Sudan, 2021

From: Structure, functions, performance and gaps of event-based surveillance (EBS) in Sudan, 2021: a cross-sectional review

No

Statement

N. Darfur

N. Kordofan

Northern

Khartoum

Sinnar

Gedarif

Average

1

State has a list of signals and events

10

10

10

10

10

10

10.0

2

State capacity to detect signals and events

5

4

4

10

8

6

6.2

3

State register signals and events regularly

5

5

5

8

8

8

6.5

4

State triages/verifies signals within 24 h

10

10

10

10

10

8

9.7

5

State reports signals and events to FMOH

4

3

3

10

10

10

6.7

6

There is structured collaboration with partners

1

1

1

8

1

1

2.2

7

There is an EBS at state level

8

1

1

8

0

0

3.0

8

There is CEBS at state level

8

6

6

4

7

7

6.3

9

EBS is part of HEEC structure

7

0

0

8

6

7

4.7

10

State assesses risk within 48 h

10

10

10

10

10

8

9.7

11

State responds within 48 h

7

10

10

10

10

8

9.2

12

HEEC at state level has a functional structure

7

2

0

8

10

10

6.2

13

HEEC has written roles and responsibilities

7

0

0

0

0

0

1.2

14

State has all national guidelines and SOPs

5

3

7

8

7

10

6.7

15

Staff at state and localities are trained

1

7

5

7

3

3

4.3

16

State has a budgeted plan

10

10

10

0

10

10

8.3

17

There is a known budget for surveillance

7

10

2

0

10

10

6.5

18

State has free access to internet

3

0

10

6

0

0

3.2

19

State is part of the national HEEC network

8

10

10

9

8

8

8.8

20

State has a plan and checklist for supervision

2

10

10

10

10

5

7.5

21

State conducts supervision regularly

1

1

1

8

2

2

2.5