Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for data-driven improvements in humanitarian health responses with the ethical imperative of ensuring research integrity and the responsible translation of findings. Humanitarian health information management professionals operate in resource-constrained environments where the pressure to demonstrate impact is high, yet the capacity for rigorous research and quality improvement may be limited. Navigating the expectations for simulation, quality improvement, and research translation demands a nuanced understanding of ethical principles, data governance, and the practicalities of implementation in complex humanitarian settings. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves establishing a robust, multi-stage framework for translating simulated data and quality improvement findings into actionable research and improved health outcomes. This approach prioritizes ethical review and stakeholder engagement from the outset. It begins with the rigorous validation of simulated data to ensure its representativeness of real-world humanitarian health scenarios. Subsequently, quality improvement initiatives are designed and implemented based on these validated simulations and initial data collection, with clear protocols for monitoring and evaluation. The findings from these quality improvement cycles are then systematically analyzed to identify researchable questions. Before any formal research is initiated, ethical approval is sought, and a plan for disseminating findings to relevant stakeholders (including affected communities and implementing partners) is developed. This ensures that any research translation is grounded in evidence, ethically sound, and geared towards practical application and continuous learning within the humanitarian health sector. This aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice and ethical research conduct expected in humanitarian health information management. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing the immediate publication of findings from simulations and initial quality improvement efforts without undergoing formal ethical review or rigorous validation. This fails to uphold research integrity and could lead to the dissemination of potentially misleading or unverified information, which is ethically problematic and undermines the credibility of humanitarian health information management. Another incorrect approach is to focus solely on the technical aspects of data simulation and quality improvement without considering the practical translation of these efforts into research or improved health interventions. This overlooks the core expectation of research translation and the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes for affected populations, representing a failure to fulfill professional responsibilities. A further incorrect approach involves implementing research translation activities based on unvalidated simulations and anecdotal evidence from quality improvement initiatives. This lacks the necessary scientific rigor and ethical oversight, potentially leading to interventions that are ineffective or even harmful, and failing to meet the standards for responsible research and practice in humanitarian settings. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that integrates ethical considerations, scientific rigor, and practical applicability. This involves: 1) Clearly defining the objectives of simulation, quality improvement, and research translation. 2) Establishing robust data governance and validation processes. 3) Implementing a phased approach to quality improvement, with continuous monitoring and feedback loops. 4) Systematically identifying research gaps and formulating research questions based on evidence. 5) Securing appropriate ethical approvals before commencing research. 6) Developing clear dissemination strategies that engage all relevant stakeholders. 7) Committing to a cycle of continuous learning and adaptation based on research findings and implementation experiences.

The risk matrix shows a potential outbreak of a highly contagious disease in a densely populated refugee camp with limited sanitation infrastructure. This scenario is professionally challenging due to the immediate threat to life, the vulnerability of the population, and the potential for rapid, widespread transmission. Careful judgment is required to balance the urgency of response with the ethical imperative of informed consent and data privacy, especially within a humanitarian context where individuals may be disempowered. The best approach involves establishing a clear, community-led communication strategy to inform affected populations about the outbreak, preventive measures, and the purpose of data collection for health interventions. This strategy should prioritize culturally appropriate messaging, utilize trusted local leaders and health workers as conduits, and ensure that individuals understand how their health information will be used and protected. This aligns with ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence, ensuring that interventions are not only effective but also respectful of the dignity and rights of the affected individuals. Furthermore, adherence to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence guides the responsible collection and use of health data in such crises. An incorrect approach would be to immediately implement mandatory health screenings and data collection without prior community engagement or clear communication about the purpose and use of the data. This fails to respect the principle of informed consent, potentially eroding trust and hindering cooperation with essential health measures. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize rapid data collection over data security and privacy, leading to the potential misuse or unauthorized disclosure of sensitive health information, which violates fundamental ethical obligations and potentially contravenes data protection guidelines applicable in humanitarian settings. A third incorrect approach is to rely solely on external technical expertise without involving local community structures or health personnel in the decision-making and implementation of health information management, which can lead to culturally inappropriate or unsustainable interventions and overlooks the importance of local ownership and capacity building. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a rapid needs assessment, followed by ethical considerations regarding data collection, privacy, and consent. This framework should integrate humanitarian principles, ensuring that all actions are guided by the needs of the affected population and respect for their rights. Community engagement and participation should be a cornerstone of the process, ensuring that interventions are contextually relevant and sustainable. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of data management practices are crucial to adapt to evolving circumstances and maintain ethical standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to balance the need for comprehensive preparation with the practical constraints of time and available resources. Over-reliance on a single, potentially outdated, resource can lead to gaps in knowledge, while an overly broad approach can be inefficient and overwhelming. The core challenge lies in developing a strategic, evidence-based preparation plan that aligns with the examination’s scope and the candidate’s learning style, while also adhering to ethical standards of professional development. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that begins with a thorough review of the official examination syllabus and recommended reading lists provided by the examination body. This is followed by a structured timeline that allocates specific periods for in-depth study of each syllabus topic, incorporating diverse learning materials such as peer-reviewed articles, reputable humanitarian health information management case studies, and relevant policy documents. Regular self-assessment through practice questions and mock exams is crucial to identify areas needing further attention. This method is correct because it directly addresses the examination’s stated requirements, ensures comprehensive coverage, and promotes active learning and knowledge retention, aligning with the ethical obligation of a healthcare professional to maintain competence and provide evidence-based care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on a single, widely circulated study guide, especially one not recently updated or officially endorsed, is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks significant knowledge gaps if the guide is incomplete, outdated, or misinterprets key concepts. It fails to meet the ethical standard of thorough preparation and can lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information. Focusing exclusively on recent humanitarian health information management conferences and workshops without integrating foundational knowledge is also problematic. While current trends are important, a lack of understanding of core principles and established best practices can lead to superficial knowledge and an inability to apply concepts in diverse situations. This approach neglects the comprehensive nature of the examination and the ethical imperative to build a robust knowledge base. Devoting the majority of preparation time to memorizing specific data points and statistics without understanding their underlying context or application is an inefficient and ethically questionable strategy. While some factual recall is necessary, an overemphasis on rote memorization at the expense of conceptual understanding and critical thinking can lead to an inability to adapt knowledge to real-world scenarios, which is a failure in professional competence. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for licensure examinations should adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach. This involves: 1. Understanding the Examination Scope: Thoroughly reviewing the official syllabus and any provided guidelines. 2. Resource Identification: Identifying a range of credible and relevant resources, prioritizing those recommended by the examination body. 3. Strategic Planning: Developing a realistic study timeline that breaks down the syllabus into manageable study blocks. 4. Active Learning: Engaging with material through summaries, concept mapping, and practice questions, rather than passive reading. 5. Self-Assessment: Regularly testing knowledge and identifying weak areas for targeted review. 6. Ethical Consideration: Ensuring preparation aligns with the professional obligation to provide competent and ethical humanitarian health information management services.

The risk matrix shows a heightened probability of a novel infectious disease outbreak in a densely populated refugee camp following recent heavy rainfall and displacement. This scenario is professionally challenging because it demands immediate, accurate, and actionable information under extreme pressure, with limited resources and potential for rapid deterioration. The ethical imperative is to protect vulnerable populations by preventing widespread illness and death, requiring swift and effective public health interventions. Careful judgment is required to balance the urgency of the situation with the need for evidence-based decision-making and adherence to established public health principles. The best approach involves immediately activating a pre-established rapid needs assessment protocol that prioritizes syndromic surveillance data from community health workers and mobile clinics, alongside initial environmental risk mapping. This approach is correct because it aligns with established humanitarian health information management principles for crisis settings, emphasizing early detection and situational awareness. Specifically, it leverages existing community-level data collection mechanisms, which are crucial for timely identification of potential outbreaks in resource-constrained environments. The rapid assessment framework ensures that critical information on disease patterns, affected populations, and environmental factors is gathered efficiently to inform immediate response priorities, such as targeted public health messaging, resource allocation for basic healthcare, and isolation strategies, thereby minimizing morbidity and mortality. This proactive and systematic data collection is ethically mandated to ensure the well-being of the affected population. An incorrect approach would be to delay the activation of surveillance systems until a formal epidemiological investigation team can be deployed and conduct a comprehensive case-by-case investigation. This is professionally unacceptable because it introduces significant delays in identifying the scope and nature of the potential outbreak. In a crisis, such delays can lead to unchecked transmission, overwhelming healthcare facilities and resulting in preventable loss of life. It fails to recognize the critical role of rapid needs assessment and syndromic surveillance in the initial stages of a crisis. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal reports from camp leaders without a structured data collection framework. While anecdotal information can be a signal, it lacks the systematic validation and quantification necessary for effective public health decision-making. This approach is ethically problematic as it risks misinterpreting the situation, leading to misallocation of scarce resources or inappropriate interventions, potentially harming the population more than helping. It bypasses established protocols for data integrity and reliability. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to focus exclusively on procuring advanced diagnostic equipment before understanding the most likely pathogens and transmission routes. While advanced diagnostics are important, their deployment should be guided by initial rapid assessments. Prioritizing equipment over immediate information gathering and basic public health measures is a failure of professional reasoning in a crisis. It represents a reactive rather than proactive stance and does not address the immediate need for understanding the situation to guide initial life-saving interventions. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes rapid information gathering and analysis in the initial phase of a crisis. This involves activating pre-defined protocols for needs assessment and surveillance, leveraging existing community health structures, and using a tiered approach to data collection that moves from rapid syndromic indicators to more detailed investigations as the situation evolves and resources allow. Ethical considerations, particularly the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence, should guide all decisions, ensuring that actions taken are evidence-based and aimed at protecting the most vulnerable.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an individual to navigate the complex and sensitive issue of licensure retake policies within the context of humanitarian health information management. Balancing the need for qualified professionals with the imperative of ensuring competence, while also considering the unique pressures and circumstances faced by those working in humanitarian settings, demands careful judgment. The potential impact on service delivery and patient care necessitates a robust and fair approach to licensure and re-evaluation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established blueprint weighting and scoring criteria, coupled with a clear understanding of the examination body’s retake policy. This approach prioritizes adherence to the established framework, ensuring consistency and fairness in the evaluation process. The retake policy, designed to provide opportunities for candidates to demonstrate mastery after initial assessment, is a critical component of the licensure process. Adhering to this policy, which likely outlines specific conditions, waiting periods, or additional training requirements before a retake is permitted, upholds the integrity of the licensure examination and the standards it aims to set for humanitarian health information management professionals. This aligns with the ethical obligation to ensure that all licensed professionals possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their duties effectively and responsibly. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to grant an immediate retake without considering the established retake policy and the candidate’s performance against the blueprint weighting. This bypasses the structured evaluation process and undermines the credibility of the examination. It fails to acknowledge that the initial assessment, based on the blueprint, indicated a deficiency that needs to be addressed. Another incorrect approach would be to deny a retake outright based on a single failed attempt without reference to the retake policy or any potential mitigating circumstances that might be considered within the policy’s framework. This can be overly punitive and may not reflect the candidate’s overall potential or commitment to the profession. Finally, making a decision based solely on the perceived urgency of the candidate’s role in a humanitarian setting, without adhering to the established licensure and retake policies, compromises the standardized and equitable nature of the examination process. While humanitarian needs are critical, the integrity of professional licensure must be maintained to ensure competent practice. Professional Reasoning: Professionals faced with such situations should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the governing regulatory framework, including the examination blueprint, scoring mechanisms, and retake policies. They should then objectively assess the candidate’s performance against these established criteria. Any requests for exceptions or special considerations should be evaluated strictly within the parameters and spirit of the existing policies. If policies are unclear or appear to create undue hardship in specific humanitarian contexts, the professional’s duty is to consult with the relevant examination board or regulatory body for clarification or to advocate for policy review, rather than making ad-hoc decisions that could compromise standards.

This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent tension between humanitarian principles and the operational realities of engaging with military forces during a complex health crisis. The need to maintain neutrality, impartiality, and independence while ensuring effective health service delivery in a conflict zone requires careful navigation. Missteps can compromise humanitarian access, endanger beneficiaries and staff, and undermine the credibility of humanitarian action. The best approach involves a structured, principle-based engagement that prioritizes humanitarian needs and adheres strictly to humanitarian principles. This means establishing clear communication channels with military actors to negotiate access and deconflict operations, ensuring that all interactions are guided by the core humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the need for coordination while safeguarding the humanitarian mandate. It ensures that humanitarian organizations retain control over their programming and do not become perceived as part of military operations, which could jeopardize their safety and access. Adherence to these principles is foundational to humanitarian action, as outlined in various international guidelines and codes of conduct for humanitarian organizations. An incorrect approach would be to accept military logistical support without a thorough assessment of the implications for humanitarian principles. This could lead to a perception of alignment with military objectives, compromising neutrality and potentially restricting access to other population groups or areas. The failure here lies in prioritizing expediency over principled engagement, risking the erosion of trust and the ability to operate impartially. Another incorrect approach would be to refuse all engagement with military forces, even when it is necessary for ensuring the safety of humanitarian operations or facilitating access to vulnerable populations. While maintaining independence is crucial, complete disengagement can be counterproductive in situations where military forces control access or provide essential security. This approach fails to recognize the nuanced reality of the civil-military interface and the potential for principled engagement to achieve humanitarian objectives. A further incorrect approach would be to allow military objectives to dictate the prioritization of health interventions. Humanitarian action must be driven by needs assessment, not by the strategic interests of military actors. Allowing military priorities to override humanitarian needs violates the principle of impartiality and can lead to inequitable distribution of aid. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of humanitarian principles and their application in the specific context. This involves conducting a thorough risk assessment of any proposed interaction or support from military actors, considering the potential impact on neutrality, impartiality, independence, and access. Establishing clear communication protocols and seeking consensus among humanitarian actors within the cluster system before engaging with military forces is also vital. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the impact of civil-military engagement on humanitarian operations are essential for adaptive management and upholding the humanitarian mandate.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of establishing and operating a field hospital in a humanitarian crisis. The critical need for rapid deployment, limited resources, and the vulnerability of the affected population demand meticulous planning and execution. Decisions made regarding field hospital design, WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) infrastructure, and supply chain logistics have direct and immediate impacts on patient safety, disease prevention, operational efficiency, and the overall effectiveness of the humanitarian response. Failure in any of these areas can lead to preventable suffering, increased morbidity and mortality, and erosion of trust in humanitarian efforts. Careful judgment is required to balance immediate needs with long-term sustainability and adherence to established humanitarian principles and best practices. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a phased approach that prioritizes immediate life-saving interventions while simultaneously laying the groundwork for sustainable operations. This begins with a rapid needs assessment to inform the design of a functional and adaptable field hospital layout that maximizes patient flow and infection control. Simultaneously, robust WASH infrastructure, including safe water sources, adequate sanitation facilities, and hygiene promotion programs, must be established as a foundational element to prevent outbreaks of waterborne and sanitation-related diseases. The supply chain logistics must be designed to ensure the timely and consistent delivery of essential medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and equipment, with contingency plans for disruptions. This approach is correct because it aligns with humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence by directly addressing the most critical needs of the affected population in a structured and responsible manner. It also adheres to international guidelines for humanitarian health responses, which emphasize the importance of integrated WASH services and efficient supply chain management for effective healthcare delivery in emergency settings. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Focusing solely on the immediate medical treatment needs without adequately addressing WASH infrastructure is a critical failure. This oversight can lead to the rapid spread of infectious diseases within the facility, overwhelming the very services intended to help and directly contravening the principle of “do no harm.” Similarly, designing a field hospital without considering the long-term implications of its layout on infection control and patient care, or without robust contingency planning for supply chain disruptions, demonstrates a lack of foresight and adherence to best practices in emergency health management. Prioritizing the procurement of advanced medical equipment over essential supplies like clean water and sanitation facilities is also a significant ethical and practical failing. This misallocation of resources neglects the fundamental determinants of health in a crisis setting, leading to an inefficient and potentially harmful response. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the context and the specific needs of the affected population. This involves conducting a rapid but comprehensive needs assessment that considers not only medical requirements but also the critical determinants of health, such as WASH and access to essential supplies. The design of interventions, including field hospital layout, WASH facilities, and supply chain strategies, should be guided by established humanitarian standards and best practices, with a strong emphasis on integration and synergy between these components. Contingency planning and risk assessment are paramount to ensure resilience and adaptability in the face of unforeseen challenges. Continuous monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation of the response based on real-time data and feedback are essential for maximizing effectiveness and ensuring accountability to the affected population.

The control framework reveals that understanding the purpose and eligibility criteria for the Comprehensive Sub-Saharan Africa Humanitarian Health Information Management Licensure Examination is fundamental for ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of health information management practices within the region’s humanitarian sector. This scenario is professionally challenging because individuals may misinterpret or deliberately circumvent these requirements, potentially leading to unqualified practitioners managing sensitive health data, compromising patient privacy, and undermining public trust in humanitarian health initiatives. Careful judgment is required to uphold the standards set by the examination’s governing body. The correct approach involves a thorough review of the official examination guidelines published by the relevant Sub-Saharan African humanitarian health information management regulatory authority. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the stated purpose of the licensure examination, which is to establish a standardized benchmark for competence and ethical practice among health information managers operating in humanitarian contexts across Sub-Saharan Africa. Eligibility is defined by these guidelines, which typically include specific educational qualifications, relevant professional experience in humanitarian health settings, and adherence to ethical conduct standards. By consulting these official sources, candidates ensure they meet all prerequisites, thereby demonstrating their commitment to professional standards and the responsible management of health information. An incorrect approach would be to rely on informal discussions or outdated information from colleagues regarding eligibility. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the authoritative source of information, increasing the risk of misinformation and disqualification. It fails to acknowledge the dynamic nature of regulatory requirements, which can be updated to reflect evolving best practices and emerging challenges in humanitarian health information management. Another incorrect approach is to assume that general health information management experience is sufficient without verifying if it specifically pertains to humanitarian contexts or meets the defined duration and scope required by the examination. This is ethically problematic as it suggests a lack of due diligence in understanding the unique demands and responsibilities of humanitarian health information management, which often involves working with vulnerable populations and in resource-constrained environments. A further incorrect approach is to focus solely on the examination content without addressing the prerequisite eligibility criteria. This is a failure of professional responsibility, as eligibility is a gatekeeping mechanism designed to ensure that only those with the foundational knowledge and experience are permitted to undertake the licensure assessment. It undermines the purpose of the examination, which is not merely to test knowledge but to license qualified individuals who can contribute effectively and ethically to the humanitarian health sector. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes verification of official documentation. This involves: 1) Identifying the authoritative body responsible for the licensure examination. 2) Accessing and meticulously reviewing their official website, handbooks, or published guidelines for purpose and eligibility. 3) Cross-referencing personal qualifications and experience against these documented requirements. 4) Seeking clarification from the official body if any aspect of the requirements is unclear. 5) Documenting all steps taken to ensure compliance.

The performance metrics show a significant increase in data breaches within the humanitarian health information management system over the past quarter. This scenario is professionally challenging because it directly impacts the safety and privacy of vulnerable populations receiving aid, potentially leading to discrimination, exploitation, or denial of essential services. The pressure to maintain operational continuity while ensuring data security necessitates careful judgment and adherence to established protocols. The best approach involves immediately initiating a comprehensive incident response plan. This plan should include a thorough investigation to identify the root cause of the breaches, a detailed assessment of the scope and impact, and the implementation of immediate containment measures to prevent further unauthorized access. Concurrently, all affected parties, including relevant national health authorities and potentially affected individuals (where feasible and ethically appropriate), must be notified in accordance with data protection regulations and humanitarian principles of transparency and accountability. This approach is correct because it aligns with the core principles of humanitarian data protection, emphasizing timely action, accountability, and the minimization of harm. Specifically, it reflects the spirit of international guidelines on humanitarian data protection which mandate prompt reporting and mitigation of data incidents to safeguard beneficiaries. An incorrect approach would be to delay reporting the breaches to national health authorities while attempting to resolve the issue internally without external oversight. This failure to promptly inform regulatory bodies and potentially affected stakeholders violates principles of transparency and accountability, and could lead to significant penalties under data protection laws. It also risks exacerbating the harm to beneficiaries if the internal remediation is insufficient or misdirected. Another incorrect approach is to focus solely on technical fixes without addressing the underlying systemic issues that led to the breaches, such as inadequate training or weak access controls. While technical solutions are important, neglecting the human and procedural elements can lead to recurring incidents. This approach fails to demonstrate due diligence in protecting sensitive health information and may not satisfy regulatory requirements for robust data governance. A further incorrect approach is to downplay the severity of the breaches in internal communications and to beneficiaries, citing operational constraints as a reason for limited disclosure. This lack of transparency erodes trust and fails to uphold the ethical obligation to inform individuals about risks to their personal data. It also contravenes the humanitarian principle of accountability to affected populations. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes the protection of beneficiary data and adheres strictly to the regulatory framework governing health information management in Sub-Saharan Africa. This involves a proactive risk assessment, a clear understanding of incident reporting obligations, and a commitment to transparent communication with all relevant stakeholders, guided by ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate humanitarian needs with the long-term sustainability and ethical considerations of health information management in a volatile displacement setting. The rapid influx of displaced persons often strains existing health infrastructure and data systems, necessitating swift decision-making under pressure. The core challenge lies in ensuring that the collection and use of sensitive health data, particularly concerning vulnerable populations like mothers and children, adhere to ethical principles and any applicable national or international guidelines for humanitarian health data, while also being practical and effective for service delivery. The best approach involves establishing a robust, yet adaptable, health information management system that prioritizes data privacy and security from the outset, even in emergency conditions. This includes implementing standardized data collection tools that capture essential nutrition, maternal-child health, and protection indicators, ensuring data is disaggregated where possible to identify specific needs within the displaced population. Crucially, this approach emphasizes training local health workers on data collection protocols, ethical data handling, and the importance of informed consent or assent, where feasible, for data use. The justification for this approach rests on the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the best interest of the beneficiaries), non-maleficence (avoiding harm, including data breaches or misuse), and respect for persons (protecting privacy and dignity). It aligns with the principles of humanitarian aid which advocate for evidence-based programming and accountability to affected populations, requiring reliable data to inform interventions and advocate for resources. An incorrect approach would be to prioritize rapid data collection without adequate consideration for privacy or security measures. This could lead to the creation of fragmented datasets, potential breaches of confidentiality, and the misuse of sensitive information, thereby violating the principle of non-maleficence and potentially causing significant harm to individuals. Another incorrect approach would be to delay the establishment of any formal data management system due to perceived logistical challenges or the urgency of immediate care. This would hinder effective needs assessment, program planning, and monitoring of health outcomes, ultimately failing to provide evidence-based support and potentially leading to inefficient resource allocation, thus not fulfilling the duty of beneficence. A third incorrect approach would be to collect data without a clear plan for its use or dissemination, leading to data hoarding or its use for purposes other than direct beneficiary support, which undermines accountability and the ethical imperative to use data for the benefit of the affected population. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a rapid needs assessment of health information requirements, followed by the design of a system that is both functional and ethically sound. This involves consulting relevant humanitarian guidelines and national health policies, engaging with affected communities to understand their concerns regarding data, and building capacity among local staff. The framework should also include mechanisms for ongoing review and adaptation of the information system as the situation evolves, ensuring that data remains relevant, accurate, and used responsibly to improve health outcomes for mothers, children, and all vulnerable individuals in displacement settings.