Table 2 Health professionals’ perception on level of accountability pharmaceutical procurement in public health facilities of Jimma Zone, April 2019 (n = 190)
Accountability | SD* | D* | N* | A* | SA* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
My facility adopts and uses STGs and facility-specific medicine list | 11 (5.8) | 61 (32.1) | 8 (4.2) | 91 (47.9) | 19 (10.0) |
Facility’s procurement present results to the appropriate public supervisory | 13 (6.8) | 49 (25.8) | 14 (7.4) | 103 (54.2) | 11 (5.8) |
Due to lack of reliable specifications no unfit products procured | 12 (6.3) | 47 (24.7) | 26 (13.7) | 76 (40.0) | 29 (15.3) |
My facility reliably quantifies consumptions | 22 (11.6) | 111 (58.4) | 9 (4.7) | 41 (21.6) | 7 (3.7) |
My facility uses key indicators such as ratio of prices to world market and supplier lead time to evaluate supplier performance | 58 (30.5) | 90 (47.4) | 11 (5.8) | 28 (14.7) | 3 (1.6) |
Reports key procurement performance indicators against target plans | 70 (36.8) | 77 (40.5) | 13 (6.8) | 22 (11.6) | 8 (4.20 |
Uses a formal monitoring system to ensure continued supplier qualifications | 27 (14.2) | 63 (33.2) | 8 (4.2) | 80 (42.1) | 12 (6.3) |