Report:

Expansion and
Replication of
EMAS Program
Approaches
Contents

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 3
III. PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................. 6
IV. METHODS............................................................................................................................ 6
V. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 6
a. Replication within EMAS target district............................................................... 6
b. Replication outside EMAS target district ......................................................... 11
VI. Reaching MOH Priority Districts ............................................................................. 15
VII. Replication Beyond EMAS Provinces .................................................................... 17
VIII.Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 17
 I. INTRODUCTION
Project Overview
In 2011, USAID launched the Expanding Maternal and Neonatal Survival (EMAS) Program to
contribute to reductions in maternal and newborn mortality by improving the quality of care within
health facilities and strengthening the referral system to ensure efficient and effective referrals from
the health center to the hospital. EMAS is a 5-year program implemented across the six provinces in
Indonesia with the largest burden of maternal and newborn mortality - North Sumatra, Banten, West
Java, Central Java, East Java, and South Sulawesi. EMAS targets approximately 150 hospitals (both
public and private) and 300 community health centers across 30 districts and cities in in these
provinces (Figure 1). Project activities are implemented in close collaboration with Indonesian
government agencies (national, provincial, and local), civil society organizations, public and private
health facilities, and health professional organizations. The project is implemented through a
partnership of five organizations including Jhpiego (lead partner), Lembaga Kesehatan Budi
Kemuliaan (LKBK), Muhammadiyah, Save the Children and RTI International.

EMAS is expected to contribute to an overall decline in national maternal and newborn mortality. The
project focuses on two major objectives: 1) Improving the quality of emergenc y obstetric and
neonatal care services in hospitals and community health centers; and 2) Increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of referral systems between community health centers and hospitals.

Sustainability and Expansion Approach

As part of its strategy, EMAS emphasizes sustainability as well as scale up of EMAS life-saving
approaches in districts and provinces outside of the EMAS target districts to maximize project
impact. The project focuses on helping districts and facilities operationalize existing GOI policies and
programs and directly supports all three national MOH strategies and seven MOH programs outlined
in the “National Action Plan for Accelerating Reductions in MMR” (Figure 2). EMAS also directly
supports the strategies outlined in the Indonesian Newborn Action Plan and national health facility
accreditation.

Tools and approaches implemented as part of the project enable facilities to more readily meet
established GOI standards and expectations regarding the provision of emergency ma ternal and
newborn care within facilities. Support to District Health Offices utilize approaches that were
specifically designed and implemented to operationalize and optimize existing, yet poorly
functioning, referral systems. EMAS approaches strengthen weak points in system, using existing
local budgets, implementers, and those accountable for quality services to improve the system from
w ithin. At the provincial and district levels, EMAS approaches are fully integrated into District Health
O ffice and health facility systems. Because EMAS focuses on supporting existing GOI policies and
programs in the majority of its interventions, many EMAS activities are funded using local budgets.
Figure 1: EMAS Program Focus Area Map
Figure 2: EMAS Support to MOH Strategies and Programs
Nationally, EMAS has been successful in integrating its approaches into national guidelines, including
the BUK 2015 Collaborative Improvement Guidelines, which incorporate all of EMAS’s referral
strengthening interventions. In add ition, other national guidelines in the process of being
developed, reflect EMAS approaches, including national death audit guidelines, the Indonesian
Newborn Action Plan (INAP) mentoring guidelines, and national puskesmas accreditation guidelines.

II. PURPOSE
EMAS has received strong support from Provincial and District Health O ffices, who benefitted from
the project by creating highly-functioning and motivated facilities and referral systems which they
can draw upon to expand quality services throughout their districts and provinces. Early in the
project, local governments (DHO and PHO) demonstrated interest in replicating EMAS interventions
and approaches. In 2015, the MOH Direktor Jeneral directed non-EMAS districts to replicate EMAS
approaches in MOH priority districts using Dekon funds. As a result of on-going interest and support
from EMAS, many districts and provinces have used existing line items within local budgets or
incorporated new line items to fund the replication of EMAS approaches.

The purpose of this document is to summarize the extent to which self-funded replication has
occurred and to identify which approaches and interventions have been most frequently replicated.
The summary includes replication within and outside of EMAS target dist ricts and provinces.
Information included in this report includes replication that occurred through June 2016.

III. METHODS
To quantify the details regarding replication, EMAS developed a standardized tool to retrospectively 1
collect information about which districts and provinces funded the replication of EMAS approaches
and interventions, the type of approach/intervention replicated, and the number of facilities or
districts where the approach or interventions were replicated. A consultant was hired by EMAS to
w ork directly with EMAS district and provincial staff (through in person and telephone interviews) to
collect information to complete the standardized tool. Information collected came from a variety of
sources including district and province records a s well as project records2. The standardized tool also
included data regarding the amount of funds used for replication. Where possible, EMAS staff
sought to obtain this information directly from government budgets or activity budgets prepared to
support the replication activity. However, in some cases this was not possible.

IV. FINDINGS
a. Replication within EMAS target district
For the purposes of this report, “within district replication” includes implementation of EMAS
approaches and interventions in facilities that were neither targeted nor funded by the EMAS project,
but that lie within the 30 EMAS-supported districts. For example, in one target district, EMAS
implements activities in 10 puskesmas. In the same target district, the DHO decides to expand the

1 Information collected before October 2015 was collected retrospectively. Data collected after October 2015 was
collected using routine project reporting mechanisms and transferred into the standardized tool.
2 In the majority of cases, EMAS staff were directly involved providing short term TA when districts and provinces

replicated approaches and interventions.

implementation area to an additional 12 puskesmas, and uses its own APDB funds to pay for the
activities to be implemented.

Findings from this analysis show that 20 of the 30 EMAS-supported districts have self-funded the
replication of EMAS interventions and approaches to additional facilities within their district (Table
1)3. In total, interventions and approaches to improve the quality of care were expanded to 274
additional facilities, while interventions and approaches focused on strengthening the referral system
w ere expanded to 328 facilities4.

Table 1: Within District, Self-Funded Replication, by Province*

Province # of Districts # of Facilities where # of Facilities where

that Q uality Improvement Referral System
Replicated Interventions and Strengthening
Interventions Approaches Approaches
and (Component 1) were (Component 2) were
Approaches implemented implemented
# of RS # of PKM # of RS # of PKM
North Sumatra 5 3 70 43 128
Banten 2 0 40 20 50
West Java 4 ** ** ** **
Central Java 3 0 58 0 58
East Java 3 0 38 0 0
South Sulawesi 3 4 61 3 26
Total 20 7** 267** 66** 262**
* Total # of facilities may be duplicated across Component 1 and Component 2.
** As of the writing of this report, data by facility was not available.

Within EMAS-supported districts, district replication was funded with APBD funds, utilizing both
existing and special budget line items. Variation was seen across districts in terms of how budgets
w ere allocated. For example, for districts in Banten Province, funds allocated to support replication
w ere provided via a special fund designated for that purpose. In Karawang, West Java, funds were
included in a separate task budget, listed separately from other MCH activities. However, in all
districts, budgets allocated could be used to support either within-district replication or to provide
support for other activities related to EMAS, including for facilities supported by EMAS.

Among the districts that self-funded the replication of EMAS interventions to non-EMAS-supported
facilities within the district, Figure 3 below shows the total number of districts replicating specific
interventions, and whether the interventions were implemented in puskesmas or hospitals. O verall,
districts already supported by EMAS have most frequently funded and expanded the implementation

3 Table 1 does not include data on the number of facilities within West Java where EMAS interventions and
approaches have been replicated. Within district replication in West Java districts has utilized a different approach,
where by details regarding which interventions and approaches have been replicated was not readily available at the
writing of this report.
4 Note that the facilities captured under Component 1 and Component 2 in this table are not mutually exclusive (i.e.

the same facility may be counted twice under each component).

of interventions (within district replication) to puskesmas within their districts. This finding is
consistent with expectations, as EMAS already targets and provides direct support to the majority of
hospitals providing maternity services within the 30 districts. O verall, among the most common
interventions replicated outside of EMAS target facilities in the 30 EMAS districts was MOUs,
followed by SijariEMAS, Clinical Performance Tools and clinical mentoring.

Figure 3: # of districts replicating interventions to facilities within EMAS -supported districts, by

intervention type and facility type

20

12
15
11

10 15
15 12 11
11
5 10 3
8

3 4 3
1 2 2 1
0

# of Districts Replicating within Hospitals # of Districts Replicating within Puskesmas

A review of replication by facility and intervention type follows a similar pattern (Figure 4). SijariEMAS
w as the most replicated intervention (in a total of 308 facilities), followed by MOUs (300 facilities),
Clinical Performance Tools (246 facilities) and Clinical Mentoring (222 facilities). In addition, clinical
dashboards, standardized registers and emergency trolleys were all replicated in large numbers of
facilities. Figure 5 shows the extent to which each province has replicated interventions (both quality
of care and referral system strengthening). O verall, EMAS districts in South Sulawesi have replicated
the largest number of quality of care interventions within EMAS-supported districts, followed by
Central Java and North Sumatra. Within district replication of referral system strengthening
interventions occurred most frequently within facilities in North Sumatra and South Sulawesi.
 Figure 4: # of facilities where EMAS interventions were replicated, by intervention

Audit

SijariEMAS MOU Clinical Clinical Clinical Standard Emergency Clinical Audits

Performance Mentoring Dashboards Register Trolley Rotations
Tools
PKM 275 247 241 221 175 175 164 34 0
Hospital 33 53 5 1 4 2 3 4 5
Total 308 300 246 222 179 177 167 38 5

Figure 5: # of facilities replicating interventions, by province and intervention type

Replication of Q uality of Care Interventions

300

45
250

63
200 58

34
150 40
76 58
34 38
32
100 5 34 38
58 40
51 25
50 38
13 32
58 59
35 32 38
0
South Sulawesi Central North Sumatra Banten East Java

Clinical Mentoring Clinical Rotations Clinical Dashboards

Hospital Death Audit Clinical Performance Tools Emergency Trolley
Standard Register
 Replication of Referral System Strengthening Interventions

350

300

250
177
200

150

100 89
153
50
51 58 46 34
0
North Sumatra South Sulawesi Central Java Banten East Java

Sijari EMAS PK (MoU)

Despite efforts to gather information regarding the amount EMAS-supported districts spent on
replicating interventions within their own district, i t was not possible to disaggregate the funds spent on
w ithin district replication of EMAS-supported interventions.

Through work with the district Pokjas and other advocacy activities, EMAS worked with the DHO to
ensure sufficient funding for MNH priorities. In addition, w here possible, EMAS sought to use existing
district budget line items to fund activity implementation within target facilities and districts. For
example, funds to host clinical rotations in hospitals were utilized from existing line items for “training”
in district budgets. To provide context for this report, EMAS identified total district budget allocations
(w here possible) for maternal and child health activities from 2013 to 2016 in EMAS-supported districts
(Figure 6)5. Four of the six provinces saw overall increases in MCH budgets from 2013 to 2016. Budgets
in East Java showed an overall decline and those in South Sulawesi showed uneven trends during the
time period reviewed. In East Java, the 2013 and 2014 budget in one district (Malang) was especially
high as significant funds were allocated for facility renovations. It should be noted that trends in several
districts and provinces show uneven growth patterns. These trends can be partially explained by the fact
that some interventions required large, up-front costs (eg. renovations, purchase of an ambulance).
This pattern is especially clear in West Java, where significant amounts of APBD funds were spent on the
purchase of hardware for SijariEMAS in 2015 in that year.

5*Budget figures for South Sulawesi and Banten include the sum of district budgets in EMAS-supported districts
used to fund EMAS interventions only. Figures from the other four provinces are representative of the sum of the
district MCH budgets in EMAS-supported districts.
Figure 6: District Budget Trends (2013 – 2016) for Maternal and Child Health Activities, EMAS-Supported
Districts

400,000,000

350,000,000

300,000,000
Hundreds

250,000,000

200,000,000

150,000,000

100,000,000

50,000,000

0
2013 2014 2015 2016
North Sumatera Banten* West Java
Central Java East Java South Sulawesi*
Linear (North Sumatera) Linear (Banten*) Linear (West Java)
Linear (Central Java) Linear (East Java) Linear (South Sulawesi*)

b. Replication outside EMAS target district

For the purposes of this report, “replication districts” includes implementation of EMAS approaches and
interventions in facilities or districts that were neither targeted by nor funded by the EMAS project.
Findings contained in this section of the report are limited to replication districts that lie within EMAS -
supported provinces. Section IV below will discuss the extent to which replication has occurred outside
of the six EMAS-supported provinces.

In total, 35 districts and cities have replicated EMAS approaches and interventions (Figure 7). West Java
has the highest number of replication districts and cities (11), followed by North Sumatra (8), East Java
(7), Central Java (6) and Banten (3 each). Plans to replicate EMAS interventions in Bone, South Sulawesi
w ere underway, but not yet finalized at the time data was collected for this report 6.

6Plans are underway in Bone, confirmed via Surat Edaran Bupati, to replicate clinical mentoring, Pokja and MOU in
Bone.
Figure 7: Total number of replication districts and cities

The extent to which each of these 35 districts and cities has replicated EMAS approaches and
interventions varies. The full package of EMAS activities includes a number of inter-related
interventions aimed at strengthening the quality of care within the facility and the referral system within
the district. Table 2 shows the number of interventions that have been implemented in each of the
replication districts and cities. Four districts/cities have implemented the ma jority of the package of
interventions for both quality improvement and referral system strengthening- Sibolga, North Sumatra;
Kota Tangerang and Kota Cilegon, Banten; and Kudus, Central Java. While no replication districts/cities
in East Java have implemented referral system strengthening interventions, the seven replication
districts/cities in the province have implemented nearly the full package of quality improvement
interventions. O ther replication districts/cities have, thus far, only implemented a smaller portion of the
EMAS package.

Table 2: Total # of Quality Improvement and Referral System Strengthening Interventions Replicated in
Replication Districts/Cities

Province Replication District/City # of Quality # of Referral

Improvement System
Interventions Strengthening
Replicated Interventions
Replicated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
North Pak-Pak Bharat
Sumatra Binjai
Serdang Bedagai; Labuhan Batu
Utara; Batu Bara; Tapanuli Selatan;
Nias Selatan
Sibolga
Banten Kota Tangerang Selatan
 Kota Tangerang
Kota Cilegon
West Java Kuningan
Garut; Kota Depok; Pangandaran
Tasikmalaya
Majalengka; Cianjua; Bekasi
Kota Bogor
Sukabumi; Purwakarta
Central Java Pati; Batan; Pemalang; Kendal;
Banjarnegara
Kudus
East Java Kota Kediri; Bolongegoro;
Lumanjang; Probolinggo; Gresik;
Pacitan; Sumenep

Figure 8 provides an overview of the extent to which individual interventions are implemented within
the replication districts/cities. O f the 35 replication districts and cites, 71 percent implemented Clinical
Performance Tools (25 districts/cities), 63 percent implemented Clinical Mentoring (22 districts/cities)
and 46 percent implemented SijariEMAS (16 districts/cities). Among the commonly replicated
interventions were also Clinical Dashboards and Death Audits, both implemented in 43 percent of
districts (15 districts/cities) and Pokjas, implemented in 40 percent (14/37) of replication districts and
cities. The Figure 8 also highlights the total number of facilities (represented by a black circle on the
figure) within the replication district/city that have replicated the individual intervention (as applicable).
A review of these interventions shows that Clinical Performance Tools, SijariEMAS, and Clinical
Mentoring were implemented in the highest numbers of facilities. It should be noted that replication is
still in the early stages. In many cases, replication that occurred during the period included in this review
represents a portion of the replication that districts are planning in the coming months and through
2017.
 Figure 8: Total Replication Districts and Cities and Total Facilities Replicating Interventions, by intervention area

30 450

400

# of facilities replicating intervention

# of districts replicating intervention

25
350

20 300

250
15
200

10 150

100
5
50

0 0
Clinical Clinical Clinical Death Standard Emerg. Civic Clinical
SijariEMAS Pokja MOU MKIA
Perf. Tools Mentoring Dashboard Audit Register Trolley Forum Rotation
# of replication districts 25 22 16 15 15 14 10 9 4 3 2 1
# of replication facilities 432 168 224 89 15 78 69 78 1

# of replication districts # of replication facilities

Similar to trends seen within district replication, puskesmas comprise the majority of facilities where
replication has occurred in replication districts and cities (Figure 9). O verall, puskesmas comprise
approximately two-thirds of the facilities where replication has occurred in non-EMAS districts and
cities.

Figure 9: Number of facilities implementing EMAS-supported interventions in replication districts/cities,

by facility and intervention type

450

400

350

300

250
399
200

150 163
100 116

50 64 54 35
49 15 1
61 52 43
33 25 24 20
0 0

Hospital Puskesmas

District priorities and budget availability influences what is replicated and where. Funds used to pay for
replication come from a variety of sources, including district APBD budgets, Dekon funds allocated by
the province and in some cases funds from hospitals (BLUD). It was not possible to disaggregate the
funds spent directly on replicating EMAS interventions and approaches with a high-level of accuracy
and therefore data on budget allocations have been omitted from this report.

V. Reaching MOH Priority Districts

The provincial level plays several roles in supporting replication including setting province-wide
priorities for maternal and newborn health, providing financial resources, and facilitating mentoring
across districts. The Indonesia MOH has also designated nine provinces (including 49 districts) as
priority provinces. The six EMAS target provinces are included among the nine MOH priority provinces
and 26 of EMAS target districts are among the 49 MOH priority districts. Table 3 provides an overview
of the coverage of EMAS within these priority provinces and districts. EMAS has strong links at the
province level and has put significant effort into pro moting the replication of EMAS interventions and
approaches, especially in the GOI priority districts. O f the 23 priority districts not originally targeted by
EMAS, 16 have already replicated EMAS interventions using government funding sources. All priority
districts in North Sumatra, West Java and Central Java are EMAS target districts or EMAS replication
districts.

Table 3: Coverage of EMAS within GOI Priority Districts

Province Total # of GOI # of Priority # of Priority # of Priority

Priority Districts Districts Districts Districts where
Supported Replicating no EMAS
directly by EMAS EMAS using Intervention has
Government been
Funds implemented

North Sumatra 9 4 5 0
Banten 4 2 0 2
West Java 10 5 5 0
Central Java 12 7 5 0
East Java 8 5 1 2
South Sulawesi 6 3 0 3
Total 49 26 16 7

In the provinces where priority districts have not yet begun replicating EMAS, efforts have been
underway to encourage uptake by both the PHO and by EMAS staff through province-wide promotion
activities. Yet, the decision to replicate EMAS interventions lies with the district government.
Discussions regarding replicating EMAS in the two remaining priority districts have been underway for
some time in Banten province, but detailed plans have not yet materialized. Similarly, in South Sulawesi
replication plans have been made, but had not yet been implemented as of the writing of this report. In
East Java, the PHO reached out to the two remaining districts regarding their interest to replicate EMAS,
but confirmation was not received until DeKon budgets were already issued.

O verall however, PHOs show strong support for the replication of EMAS. In North Sumatra, the PHO
has stated that EMAS mentors should be used for replication purposes, managed by Tim 21. In West
Java, the PHO already manages replication schedules, provides mentors to replicate interventions in
new districts, leads the facilitation of replication activities and pays directly for mentor fees and
transport. In Central Java, the PHO has issued a decree regarding how the mentoring teams should be
managed and has provided DeKon funds to support replication. Finally, in East Java, the PHO
established the PENAKIB team which handles the replication of activities in six districts.

South Sulawesi has had more challenges in terms of obtaining significant support from the PHO to
replicated EMAS-supported interventions. To date, no provincial funds have been allocated. However,
the PHO has provided additional funds to support more frequent MPAs within the pr ovince.

In addition to budget availability, the ability to replicate activities in non-EMAS districts relies on the
readiness and availability of mentor teams from other districts to provide support for implementation.
The project has put significant efforts into ensuring a sufficient mentor assets capable of providing
mentoring support both within and outside of their districts. While replication within EMAS -supported
districts is generally managed by the district and with assets based within the distri ct, replication in
district and cities that were not supported by EMAS is managed by the Provincial Health O ffice, who
draws upon the mentoring assets developed within EMAS -supported districts to support the
implementation of interventions in replication d istricts/cities. The exact process and mechanisms for
managing the mentoring process has been defined for each province and described in other EMAS
project documentation.

VI. Replication Beyond EMAS Provinces

The most significant levels of replication have occurred within EMAS provinces. However, as a result of
various national meetings where districts had an opportunity to share their experiences implementing
EMAS approaches in their districts, some non-EMAS provinces and districts in attendance showed
interest in replicating elements of the project. Some of these provinces and districts visited EMAS-
supported districts to learn more about the project, while others requested follow up discussions with
EMAS staff. To date, eleven districts/cities in provinces have replicated EMAS-supported interventions:
West Papua (Unicef-funded), Padang, West Kalimantan, Riau, West Sumatra, Kepulauan Riau, Bengkulu,
Yogyakarta, DKI Jakarta, Ternate, and Tidore. Unfortunately, detailed information regarding the extent
of or type of replication that occurred is not available.

VII. Conclusion
Although expansion and replication of approaches beyond the original target facilities and districts was
not an explicit goal of the project, the design of EMAS has resulted in consi derable buy in and
ow nership of the project approach. In its final year, EMAS is leaving behind essential human assets
capable of mentoring others in project approaches, PHOs and DHOs who are equipped to plan, budget
and facilitate the expansion of project approaches, and packages of tools, materials and other resources
that make replication possible. Because the project directly supports and compliments existing MOH
strategies and programs, leverages existing budgets and targets implementers and those accountable
for improving health systems, EMAS project approaches have been replicated and funded using local
government sources within 20 of the 30 districts and cities targeted by EMAS and adopted in an
additional 35 districts and cities outside of EMAS target districts. Currently, EMAS interventions and
approaches have been implemented or replicated in 42 of the 49 GOI priority districts.

In addition to the replication that has already occurred, EMAS expects continued momentum to lead to
additional replication of project interventions and approaches. In the six provinces that have been
directly supported by the project, PHOs are leading the development of plans to replicate EMAS in new
facilities and districts. Support for continued replication has also come from the national level. In 2015,
the MO H Direktor Jeneral directed non-EMAS districts to replicate EMAS approaches in MOH priority
districts using Dekon funds. In addition, EMAS was successful in integrating the package of EMAS
interventions into national policies (Collaborative Improvement Guidelines) which are expected to result
in further replication.