The Sindh government will be launching recruitment drives to appoint lady health workers (LHWs), community midwives (CMWs) and lady health supervisors (LHSs) for 2,130 vacancies.
This was decided during a progress review meeting chaired by Sindh Health Minister Dr Azra Pechuho where new requirements for the hiring of LHWs were discussed.
The participants of the meeting discussed age limits, training procedures and recruitment criteria for LHWs.
The meeting decided that third party systems would be used for the recruitment process, while the age limit of aspiring applicants would be between 20 - 30 years. Besides, an upper age limit of 50 years would be set for the retirement of LHWs.
With respect to the previous qualifications and education of LHWs, it was decided those aspiring to be appointed on the posts would need to have completed their matriculation, while the recruitment process itself would initiate upon trade union recommendations.
Also read: SHCC teams find 27 out of 176 clinics SOP-compliant
The recruitment process would entail the testing and interviewing of aspiring applicants as well.
Currently, Sindh has 20,446 LHWs, 770 LHSs and 3,345 CMWs. Discussing the effectiveness of health care professionals, the idea of survey-based placement was introduced in order to have best suited and appropriate training for LHWs.
In a population of 20 million, the efficacy of LHWs was kept at around 48 per cent, it was observed. The review meeting further pointed out the need to hire LHWs at the district level.
Besides, Dr Pechucho lauded LHWs and emphasised the importance of their role.
Additionally, the meeting agreed to recruit and train 820 CMWs between 2021 and 2023 and increase the number of LHWs in Thar.
The meeting was attended by Sindh Health Parliamentary Secretary Qasim Siraj Soomro, Sindh Health Secretary Dr Kazim Jatoi, Health Services Director General (DG) Dr Irshad Memom and Health Deputy DG Dr Zulfqar Ali Dharejo.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ