Integrated Health Information Systems
Part of: OWN · ICT · Chemistry & Materials
For Governments
You want one health information system that answers to you – not to twelve different donors.
Your nurses waste hours filling out separate forms for HIV, TB, malaria, and polio. Your ministry cannot see real-time outbreak data because every donor keeps its own dashboard. You want to own your data – and still satisfy donor reporting requirements. We give you the integration blueprint and training. You keep the passwords.
✅ You cut health worker data entry time by 70%.
✅ You detect outbreaks in 8 days (not 21).
✅ Your government co-invests 20% → 70% – because you own the servers.
-
What's holding you back: the parallel data trap
PEPFAR built its own dashboard. Global Fund built another. Your ministry built a third. None of them talk to each other. Every time a new donor arrives, they ask for a new dataset.
You've heard this from your staff:
“I spend 4 hours a day on data entry – that's time away from patients.”
“We have the data – we just can't get it out of the silos.”
“Every audit asks for different numbers because our systems don't match.”
We give you the tools to unify. Open-source, government-hosted, and fully customizable. No vendor lock-in.
Your Plan — 3 steps you take with our tools
1. Audit your parallel systems
We give you a data mapping tool. You list every donor dashboard, every paper form, every reporting calendar. You see the duplication – often for the first time.
2. Choose your unified platform
You decide: DHIS2 or another open-source HIS. We provide configuration and training. You decide who has access.
3. Automate donor reporting and train your staff
You set the rules. Our dashboard generates PEPFAR, Global Fund, and ministry reports from one data entry point. We train your biostatisticians. After 12 months, you run it.
For Donors
You want visibility into outcomes without forcing a government to run yet another parallel dashboard just for you.
It's not a reporting preference – it's a system-wide cost you're contributing to without realizing it.
Every donor wanting its own dashboard and its own dataset feels reasonable in isolation – you need to know your money worked. But multiplied across every donor in the system, it's exactly what creates the parallel data trap: nurses doing data entry instead of care, outbreaks detected in 21 days instead of 8, and a government whose numbers don't match because they're stitched together from a dozen incompatible sources. That slower detection and degraded data quality puts your own funded outcomes at risk too.
This is built to give you what you actually need – without asking for a system built just for you.
-
Your wins, as a donor:
✅ You get automated reports generated to your exact specifications, from one unified system – without adding another dashboard to the sprawl that slows the whole portfolio down.
✅ You benefit directly from faster outbreak detection (8 days instead of 21) – a faster response protects your own investment from a localized problem spreading further.
✅ Your co-investment commitment accelerates government ownership of the servers and infrastructure – not an open-ended hosting arrangement you're indirectly funding forever.
“Within the transition period, your reporting requirements are met automatically from the same unified system every other donor uses – not a dashboard built just for you that adds to the sprawl.”
For Partners
You want your institution's data platform to be the one the government actually keeps using after the grant ends – not one more dashboard added to the pile.
It's not a technology risk – it's an adoption risk.
Partner institutions often bring a preferred data platform or dashboard into a joint program. The real risk isn't whether the technology works – it's whether the government adopts it as the one system it keeps, or whether it quietly becomes one more parallel silo that gets shelved the moment the funding ends. That outcome reflects on the partner's track record as much as the government's, and it's avoidable if the “one platform” principle is built in from day one rather than negotiated at closeout.
This is designed around a single unified platform from the start – so a partner's technical contribution gets built into the system that survives, not around it.
-
Your wins, as a partner:
✅ Your platform or technical contribution gets integrated into the one system the government commits to keeping – not left competing with a dashboard from every other donor or partner.
✅ You avoid a late-stage access dispute – government-held passwords and audit logs are the default from day one, not something negotiated awkwardly at project closeout.
✅ Your technical work is demonstrated at national scale, with faster outbreak detection as a concrete, attributable metric for your own portfolio.
“Within the first system design session, your technical contribution is built into the platform the government keeps – not left to compete with everyone else's dashboard.”