Reactive IRS Dashboards

[moshthepitt]

To be able to render this map, we need to somehow represent a "Community Health Worker (CHW) catchment area", within this CHW catchment there are:

• Operational (target) areas
• The CHW's location (a geopoint)

Plan A

One way to represent this is by:

1. Adding a new location type in the locations table that will essentially represent a CHW catchment. These will fall directly under RHCs
2. Add a new table to hold community health workers, with these fields:
   • CHW catchment - a foreign Key relation to the location table, pointing to the CHW catchment that the CHW belongs to
   • name of CHW
   • coordinates representing the location of the CHW
   • any other fields

Open Questions

1. What about spray operators, how do they relate to this?
2. Are spray operators equivalent to community health workers? In the MDA dashboards this was almost the case
3. Will operational area parents remain to be RHCs or will they become CHWs?

[ukanga]

Reactive IRS is very similar to the normal IRS, as such, almost every aspect of the IRS process will be maintained - spray operators, team leader assistants, etc.
The hierarchy for Reactive IRS will be District > RHC (optional) > CHW Catchment > Spray Areas > Household. It introduces a community health worker (CHW) to the mspray workflow, each CHW is linked to one and only one CHW Catchment location.

[ukanga]

2. Are spray operators equivalent to community health workers? In the MDA dashboards, this was almost the case

No, this is not the case, there could be more than one spray operator per CHW catchment.

[derekpollard]

1. What about spray operators, how do they relate to this?
   Spray operators function the same way as they do under IRS but will likely be displayed as they were in MDA..i.e. no parent. Data collectors or supervisors will also display with no children or parent. This allows for more flexibility as teams change.

2. Are spray operators equivalent to community health workers? In the MDA dashboards this was almost the case
CHW's will not play a specific role in the spraying itself. There will be data collectors/supervisors and spray operators as mentioned above. It may be that they become a supervisor or spray operator but this should have no consequence.

3. Will operational area parents remain to be RHCs or will they become CHWs?
In Plan A the CHW boundaries will become children to RHCs and parents to operational areas. HOWEVER, I think we will be going with Plan B in which the CHW boundaries will be 5km radius circles around the CHW points. These CHW boundaries will have the District for parents and structures for children and so become the operational areas themselves. In the tables drill down it will go from District to CHW boundaries within the district (these will be overlapping). Each CHW boundary will show the usual operational area statistics. Eligible structures on the ground, structures found, structures sprayed, spray effectiveness, found coverage, spray coverage.

4. _To be able to render this map, we need to somehow represent a "Community Health Worker (CHW) catchment area", within this CHW catchment there are:

• Operational (target) areas
• The CHW's location (a geopoint)_
  Let me know if this still applies given my notes on Plan B above. See attached a map showing what we would need to see at district level. Note that HF boundaries and 'Spray areas' and CHW points are not part of the hierarchy but would still be good to show on the map.
  Mock_Focal_IRS_response.pdf

[moshthepitt]

@ukanga since we are going with Plan B in which the buffer around each CHW is assumed to be an "operational area", I have two questions:

In answering the below please note that I am creating new operational areas for each CHW - so that it is really easy to calculate all the usual indicators, we basically need to make no changes there. Please leave a comment if you disagree with this approach. Code is here: #518

• is it fair to assume that when a new CHW is added any existing structures should be linked to that new CHW?
• in going with this approach, we can never be able to do regular IRS side by side with reactive IRS in the same locations (RHC). Are you good with this?

cc: @derekpollard

[ukanga]

• is it fair to assume that when a new CHW is added any existing structures should be linked to that new CHW?

No, not really. The CHW becomes the parent to all spray areas and existing structures should still be linked directly to spray areas. We can have an additional direct link between structures and CHWs for convinience.

[moshthepitt]

@ukanga actually please ignore the above. Following our conversation, this is the plan now:

1. Will create new CHW locations whose parent is a District
2. To calculate IRS indicators, we will have to do geo-queries to find the Households that are within each CHW location, since these can overlap. Will try to find the best place/time to do this geo-query
3. IRS calculations for all the other location levels are not affected

[derekpollard]

Hi Kelvin and Dickson. I have the shapefiles for all the CHW points as well as the CHW 5km boundaries if needed so that you can query based on any structures that fall within this. The parent of the CHW is the district and the children of the CHW are the spray areas. However, indicators for the CHW should appear exactly as they do for spray areas, i.e. structure numbers rather than as they do for districts and health facilities, i.e. number of spray areas. Is this possible?

…

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 15:34, Kelvin Jayanoris ***@***.***> wrote: @ukanga <https://github.com/ukanga> actually please ignore the above. Following our conversation, this is the plan now: 1. Will create new CHW locations whose parent is a District 2. To calculate IRS indicators, we will have to do geo-queries to find the Households that are within each CHW location, since these can overlap. Will try to find the best place/time to do this geo-query 3. IRS calculations for all the other location levels are not affected — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#517 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApEM87KtdZKdGWopPxUUDNnqfZNim8ydks5vRolkgaJpZM4bHA57> .

[ukanga]

@derekpollard Can you please share the shapefiles?

From the plan Kelvin outlined, yes the indicators will be for structures and not spray areas. It's possible.

[derekpollard]

Thanks Dickson, Good to know this will be a structure coverage indicator. I'll work on getting these shapefiles for you and will send over as soon as we have them. They are likely to change closer to the time but would this still be useful to you now for testing? Thanks

…

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 2:07 AM ukanga ***@***.***> wrote: @derekpollard <https://github.com/derekpollard> Can you please share the shapefiles? From the plan Kelvin outlined, yes the indicators will be for structures and not spray areas. It's possible. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#517 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApEM872nS-Rm4UbxAit6QUu4ML9zipn4ks5vScCtgaJpZM4bHA57> .

[ukanga]

Yes, it will help.