Presentated at the DHIS 2 Experts Academy in Oslo, Norway, in August 2016.

1. MEASURE Evaluation
PEPFAR’s DATIM4U and
Associated Interoperability
Components
Annah Ngaruro and Vladimer Shioshvili
MEASURE Evaluation
August 2016
DHIS 2 Experts Academy
Oslo, Norway

2.  Stands for Data for Accountability, Transparency,
and Impact (DATIM) for Operating Units (OU)
 A standalone version of the global DATIM
web-based application
 Designed for PEPFAR country teams and
implementing partners (IP)
 Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting (MER) results
collected on a monthly basis then aggregated;
rolled-up to quarterly
 Aggregated data sent to DATIM Global at the press
of a button
What is DATIM4U?

3. Key Features
 Preconfigured with the MER result data entry forms
 Ability to customize data entry forms to incorporate
additional Indicators
 Automatically synchronizes local data with global data,
including PEPFAR site lists, implementing
mechanisms, MER indicators, and disaggregates

4. DATIM4U Key Features
 Is a base technology OUs can use to automate data
exchange with MOHs; requires coordination
with MoH
 Aggregation rules based on PEPFAR reporting
guidance
 Includes:
• DHIS 2
• OpenHIE-based technologies to enable automated
information exchange between OUs, OGAC,
and others.

5. Creating DATIM4U
 Broad stakeholder engagement
 Extensive use of case modelling
 Determining the governance model
 Developing a communication and outreach plan:
• Webinars with field country teams
• Audience-focused communications materials
• Leveraging the PEPFAR data exchange implementer
community via OpenHIE

6. Creating DATIM4U
 Wrapping OHIE components around DATIM:
• Configuring OHIE to work with DATIM
• Additional programming to integrate OHIEcomponents
withDATIM
• End-to-end testing
• User acceptance testing

7. Components
DATIM4U comes packaged with:
• DHIS 2
• DATIM + the AdxAdapter
• Metadata synchronization
• OpenHIM (interoperability layer)
• OpenInfoMan (CSD profile implementation of the
Health Worker Registry)
• Terminology service (to be used for managing
indicator versions in the future)

8. OpenHIE Architecture

9. Metadata Synchronization
DATIM Global
Global
DATIM4U
*updates
Sites–org
hierarchy
Mechanisms
Indicators
Local
Interoperability layer
Open Health Information Mediator
Interoperability layer
Open Health Information Mediator

10.  Sites—org. hierarchy
• Care Services Discovery (CSD) standard profile is
used for queries (ITI-73 and ITI-74)
• DATIM4U is initially seeded from DATIM Global’s
site list
• DATIM4U then becomes the authority and manager
of its OU hierarchy; sites are managed locally
• Changes propagated nightly to DATIM Global
Metadata Synchronization

11.  Funding mechanisms
• Initial seeding, and nightly updates thereafter
(using CSD)
 MER Indicators
• Pre-loaded, i.e., included in distributed install
package; thereafter updated via automated updates
(planned to be updated via OHIE terminology
services in the future)
Metadata Synchronization

12. AdxAdapter
`
DATIM Global
Global
DATIM4U
ADX–
aggregatedata
Local
Interoperability layer
Open Health Information Mediator
Interoperability layer
Open Health Information Mediator

13.  Lightweight DHIS 2 App for UI; RESTful service as a back-end
 Web service written in Java, using Jersey framework
 Data exchange:
• Monthly in, quarterly out: aggregated during exchange based
on indicator aggregation rules modeled on PEPFAR quarterly,
semiannual, and annual reporting guidance (including last
value aggregation)
• Exchanged in ADX (IHE content profile) format
http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Aggregate_Data_Exchange
• Leverages DHIS 2 API for data exchange
• Uses DHIS 2 data store for persistence; H2 embedded database
for aggregation
AdxAdapter

14. Next…
 Piloting with PEPFAR country teams
 Site mapping across a federated governance model
 Automated indicator and disaggregate updates
 Management of indicators and disaggregate versions
 3rd party HMIS integration with the DATIM
exchange platform

15. MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) under terms
of Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-L-14-00004
and implemented by the Carolina Population
Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partnership with ICF International, John Snow,
Inc., Management Sciences for Health, Palladium
and Tulane University. The views expressed in this
presentation do not necessarily reflect the views
of USAID or the United States government.
www.measureevaluation.org