Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain Collected & delivery certain Ongoing data collection is best forecast for data delivery next year Age groups not covering the full age-span All ages in most of the hospitals all ages in all hospitals Indicates compliance with basic requirements Injury categories less than ECHI-29 At least home, leisure & school all injuries Indicates compliance with basic requirements Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD biased toward HD but corrected for IR All HDs + all EDs Indicates compliance with basic requirements Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing just one missing all codes implemented Indicates compliance with basic requirements Incidence rates IR not available only crude rate or based on catchment standardized for age and sex Core deliverable of IDB Geo-coverage IR not available Valid only for a region Valid at national level Indicates compliance with basic requirements Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals rational sampling but no validation check Validated sample Indicates compliance with basic requirements Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) Indicates compliance with basic requirements FDS data none Sample below minimum expected (<3000) Sample above minimum expected (3000+) Indicates use of data for prevention D. Prospects for 2018+ Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no Not secured yet yes Strongest indicator for next two years Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft in consultation Yes or no substantial improvements necessary Indicates willingness to strive for improvement Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans Ongoing substantial discussion In place or very likely Strongest basis for sustainable data collection Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced Scarce but stay the same Sufficient or will increase Indicates eventual changes in the future
In 2014, the consistency of inclusion/exclusion criteria for IDB and for the reference statistics was unclear for almost all countries. Additional comments on major shortcomings are given, when the total score falls below 43. For more details see Annex 1, which contains the full table, for all items, all countries and both years 2015 and 2017. Table 3: Scores for item-groups by country and main reasons for low scores (2015) A. Participation in exchange B. Data delivery (up to 2014) C. Quality of current system (2015) D. Prospects for 2016+ (2015) Total score (2015) Major shortcomings Maximum 8 14 20 10 52 AT 8 13 19 7 47 CY 8 10 16 7 41 Biased sample (no private hospitals). No incidence rates. CZ 3 11 14 6 34 Only data on children 0-18a, only on admissions. No incidence rates. DK 8 13 19 8 48 EE 8 10 18 8 44 FI 6 8 18 8 40 Bias toward admissions. Delayed data delivery. GE 8 11 16 6 41 Small sample. Sampling within hospital. Just one federal state. GR 1 3 0 0 4 Dropped out during JAMIE-project. HU 8 2 0 6 16 Dropped out after end of JAMIE-project. IE 7 5 13 7 32 Just data on persons 15+. Small sample. IS 4 9 18 6 37 Data collection continued, but data exchange stopped after JAMIE-project. IT 7 9 18 9 43 LT 8 10 18 7 43 LU 8 13 20 9 50 LV 8 14 18 7 47 MT 8 9 20 9 46 NL 8 13 20 9 50 NO 8 11 18 8 45 PL 2 3 0 1 6 Dropped out after end of JAMIE-project. PT 8 10 16 8 42 Just home & leisure accidents. RO 6 7 0 3 16 Dropped out after end of JAMIE-project. SE 8 11 19 8 46 SI 8 13 19 9 49 SP 6 6 11 6 29 Dropped out after end of JAMIE-project. TR 8 12 19 9 48 UK 7 7 15 7 36 Not all MDS codes implemented. Delayed data delivery.
collection? discussion - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Main shortcoming is the lack of a legal basis. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Vienna Robert Bauer OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 11 September 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: CYPRUS August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to only after many 0 after 1 or 2 1 within 2 2
information requests of reminders/calls reminders deadline A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 For 2013 & 2014 no IR provided. - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Bias due to lack of statistics from private hospitals Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1
- Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 16 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 2 Sample bias shall be controlled in order to provide national IR - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 unclear - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 Less capacities for FDS, but more for MDS - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Very good system due to the opportunity to extract MDS from public hospital statistics. Main shortcomings are the lack of national estimates (IRs) and FDS data. However, it is planned to control the bias of public hospitals and to provide IRs also retrospectively. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Nicosia Pavlos Pavlou OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: CZECH REPUBLIC August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 0 Only first NDA meeting. - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 0 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 1 A. Total score (max. 8) 3 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 2011+2012 delivered as Excel - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Not yet - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 To be checked Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 0 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 Only 0-18, only admissions - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 1 Not yet B. Total score (max. 14) 7 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection no data & no plan 0 no data but 1 Collected & 2 2
collection/ analysis? - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 0 Unknown who will handle MDS for all age groups and will be in the position to deliver data to the IDB database D. Total score (max. 10) 6 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable implementation on child injuries. Major shortcoming is the lack of governmental support to expand this system to other age-groups and ambulatory treatments. However, due to new legislation MDS data will become available in forthcoming years. Currently it is unknown, how will handle this data. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Brno Ladislav Planka OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: DENMARK August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2
A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 1 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised 1 well above advised 2 2
Country: ESTONIA August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 We have been participating in the network , different projects and events since IDB1 project - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 Start 2012 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 Average about 17% in 2012 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2
Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent system regarding MDS. Main shortcoming is the lack of FDS data. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Tallinn Liis Roovali OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: FINLAND August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 1 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 6 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 Start 2010 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of more than 40% 0 between 10% 1 less than 10% 2 1 Tb checked (bias
coding (most current delivery) unknown and 40% unknown unknown toward admissions?) Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 2014 not available yet - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 1 Admission bias - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 8 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 Bias toward admissions (75% in 2012) or confusion of coding? - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Not necessary due to full coverage Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Not necessary due to full coverage - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2
data collection continue in 2016? - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Seek FDS reference hospital - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 Implemented by administrative act. Based on hospital register - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable implementation. Shortcomings are the lack of FDS data and underreporting of ambulatory treatments, which leads to an underestimated rate. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Helsinki Markus Grönfors OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: GERMANY August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2
- Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 Automatic calculation of IR not possible at the IDB IR provided in metadata. - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 Rate valid only for Brandenburg, small sample, bias toward admissions - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 11 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 FDS>MDS - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2
Implementation Assessment are the restriction to just one federal state and the small sample. There is no constitutional responsibility at federal level, which hampers national implementation. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Potsdam Gabriele Elsässer OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: GREECE August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 1 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 0 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 0 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 0 No response on invitation to join BRIDGE project A. Total score (max. 8) 1 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 Just 2012 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2012
- Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 0 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 0 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 0 D. Total score (max. 10) 0 No competent partner available Summary Implementation Assessment A promising start-up implementation had to be discontinued due to governmental austerity measures. Data of the temporary implementation 2012 were delivered. Since 2014 no responses of previous JAMIE partner. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Athens Vasillios Makropulos OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: HUNGARY August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past 2 or less of the seven meetings 0 3-4 of the meetings 1 at least 5 meetings 2 2
five years attended attended attended - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 0 Just 2013 FDS>MDS - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 0 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 0 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 No IR, no children, no burns, just one hospital - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 2 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 0 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 0 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0
body part) - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 0 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 0 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 0 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 0 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 0 No system in place D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 1 It is likely, that legislation will provide the basis - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Legislation shall introduce MDS data collection as a matter of routine - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 Legislation shall introduce MDS data collection as a matter of routine - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 6 Summary Implementation Assessment Successful pilot FDS implementation in one hospital, which discontinued with the end of the JAMIE project. Ongoing substantial discussion about legislation, which shall make the MDS data collection compulsory for all hospitals, has been initiated.
Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Budapest Péter Varsány OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: IRELAND August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 MoH support unclear for BRIDGE project - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 7 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 0 Just 2013 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Not yet - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2.3% in 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last 1 Reference population file 2 1 2013
delivery for 2014 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 No children, small sample - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 5 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 Children 0-15y not covered. - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 1 Just 1 hospital FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 Just MDS C. Total score (max. 20) 13 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Efforts ongoing to expand current dataset
- Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 There are efforts being made to promote the JAMIE model as a template for data collection in Irish EDs. - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Promising start-up implementation. However, just one hospital, just MDS, just age 16+. Sustainability unclear, data delivery for 2014 not (yet) achieved Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Cork Eve Griffin OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: ICELAND August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 1 Active during JAMIE - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 1
- Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 Unclear for BRIDGE - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 1 A. Total score (max. 8) 4 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 2010-2013 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Not yet delivered - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2010-2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 2010-2013 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 9 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on 1 standardized for age and 2 2
catchment sex Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Hospital located in capital; however, the catchment area is the whole country. Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Just one hospital, however, it covers approximately 70% of all inpatient discharges in the country. - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 1 Data collection will continue but exchange uncertain - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Not decided - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 For data collection yes, but not for exchange - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 Uncertainty as regards staffing for centralized collection and processing of MDS data. D. Total score (max. 10) 6 Summary Sustainable system, but no decision if data will be shared at EU
Implementation Assessment level. Main shortcoming is the lack of FDS data collection. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Reykjavik Gudrun Gudfinnsdottir OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: ITALY August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 1 A. Total score (max. 8) 7 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Not yet - Accuracy of coding (most current more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2
- Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 About 16% in 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 Since 2013 also outpatients - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 participation
body part) - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Not necessary due to large sample size Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Not necessary due to large sample size - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Search for FDS reference hospital - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Main shortcoming is the lack of a FDS data. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Vilnius Rita Gaidelyte OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014
collection “warning flags” “warning flag” flag” - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1
injury data collection/ analysis? - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Luxembourg Dritan Bejko OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: LATVIA August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 participation network
A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 Almost complete for admissions; outpatients - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Some problems with one statistical region. No problem with representation urban/rural. Sampling of Just by 0 rational 1 Validated 2 2 Not necessary
hospitals availability of hospitals sampling but no validation check sample due to large sample size - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 FDS>MDS C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent system due to a solid legal basis. Main shortcoming is the bias towards admissions. However, the IRs generated automatically at the EU IDB web-gate are corrected for this bias, valid estimates for all ED cases available. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Riga Jana Lepiksone OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: MALTA August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Not yet due to IT problem - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 About 11% in 2011. Not reported for 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 1 Not yet B. Total score (max. 14) 9 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection no data & no plan 0 no data but 1 Collected & 2 2 participation network
ongoing to (re)start restart planned / data delivery uncertain delivery certain - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Two of two hospitals Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 FDS>MDS C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 Implemented by administrative act - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of 1 Yes, we remain strongly 2 2
information projects? internal resources interested D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator La Valetta Audrey Galea OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: NETHERLANDS August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 participation network
- MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments
injury type, body part) - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Validation not necessary due to large sample - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 Extracted from central health register - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Search for FDS reference hospital - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable system. Main shortcomings are the lack of FDS data. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data Oslo Johan Lund OK for JAMIE final
administrator score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: POLAND August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 0 Only during JAMIE - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 0 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 0 Only for JAMIE - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 0 Dropped out after JAMIE A. Total score (max. 8) 2 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 Only 2013 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 0 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 0 No IR participation
Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 Only children, small sample - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 3 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 0 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 0 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 0 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 0 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 0 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 0 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 0 There is no system in place D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 0 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay 1 Sufficient or 2 0
your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? the same will increase - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 0 D. Total score (max. 10) 1 Competent partner need to be found Summary Implementation Assessment Successful JAMIE pilot in the Wielkopolska region could not be continued; expansion to other hospitals (other age-groups) failed. Other competent and interested authority need to be found for the BRIDGE project. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Poznan Mariusz Sykala OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: PORTUGAL August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to only after many 0 after 1 or 2 1 within 2 2 participation
information requests of reminders/calls reminders deadline A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 FDS>MDS - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 37% unknown in 2014 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 Only home and leisure accidents. Small sample - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 FDS>MDS - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 1 Only home and leisure accidents - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of 0 rational sampling but no 1 Validated sample 2 1
hospitals validation check - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 0 About 4000 cases from 4 hospitals. FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 16 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Larger sample? Extension to all injuries? - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable system. Main shortcoming is the restriction to home and leisure accidents. Minor shortcoming is the relatively small samples of MDS hospitals and cases. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Lisbon Teresa Contreiras OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK
data delivery uncertain certain - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 0 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 0 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 0 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 0 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 0 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 0 There is no system in place D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 0 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Search for competent & interested competent authority - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in no 0 Yes, but depending on 1 Yes, we remain 2 1
D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Stockholm Pernilla Fagerström OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: SLOVENIA August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full not yet 0 just since start of 1 already before 2 2
member (2015) - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 FDS+MDS ICD10>MDS - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 6.7% in 2014 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 participation
(mechanism, injury type, body part) - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 19 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 Not likely, but eventual some problems due to funding reasons - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 2 Not necessary – there should be a major renovation of Out-patient information system in 2015 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 Health care databases act - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Minor shortcoming is that not all FDS variables are covered. Signatures
Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Ljubljana Tina Zupanič OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: SPAIN August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 1 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 Yes for JAMIE, for BRIDGE unclear - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 6 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 FDS>MDS Only 2013 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 About 20% in 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 For 2013 - Consistency of IR not available 0 not consistent or 1 Fully 2 1 Tb checked participation
case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) unclear consistent Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 2013 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 6 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 1 Restart planned in Catalunya - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 Unclear, no data yet available - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 1 Valid for Catalunya Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 unclear - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 1 unclear FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 Not available for Catalunya C. Total score (max. 20) 11 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 1 Foreseen from Catalonia from 2014 onward. Shall be available by the end of 2015 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Switch from Navarra to Catalunya
- Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 unclear - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 6 Summary Implementation Assessment Successful pilot implementation in one hospital in the region of Navarra. Data collection in Navarra discontinued after JAMIE. MDS data shall become available from Catalunya, from 2014 onward. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Barcelona Catherina Perez OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: TURKEY August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2
- Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 Not reported yet Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 12 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 FDS>MDS - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of Just by 0 rational 1 Validated 2 1 participation
hospitals availability of hospitals sampling but no validation check sample - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 15 hospitals but just about 22000 cases FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 19 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 2 It is planned to collect MDS from all EDs and continue to collect FDS from 15 hospitals - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable implementation. Minor shortcomings are the sampling within hospitals, which is not controlled yet. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data administrator Ankara Cecil Sis OK for JAMIE final score card June 2014 BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, 16 October 2015 Rupert Kisser OK
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: UNITED KINGDOM August 2015 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the seven meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 Endorsement for a harmonized system needed from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 7 B. Data delivery (up to 2014) Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 Currently just 2010 + 2011 available - MDS data 2014 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 Not yet - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 14.1% in 2011 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 1 2011 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 1 Tb checked Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2014 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 participation
B. Total score (max. 14) 7 C. Current system in place (2015) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 Currently not possible to identify fall and road location injuries due to limitations of English injury surveillance dataset being used at present - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 1 Only England at present is represented. Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Not needed due to large sample - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 No FDS reference hospital yet C. Total score (max. 20) 15 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Inclusion of Wales & Scotland. Full implementation of MDS. Search for FDS hospital. - Legal basis for No plans 0 Ongoing 1 In place or 2 1 Extraction from
- Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2014 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Fully consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 14 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of 0 rational sampling but no 1 Validated sample 2 1 2016)
hospitals validation check - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 19 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 Extension of sample planned - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 2 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Major shortcoming is the lack of a legal basis. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Vienna, October 2017 Robert Bauer yes BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: CYPRUS October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 Reference population file for 2016 has been sent but unfortunately data are inconsistent due to the fact that IDB admissions are under recording. - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Complications and sequels of medical interventions not excluded Scope of data Two or more Just one No “warning 2 2 2016) participation
collection “warning flags” “warning flag” flag” - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 11 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Data are available for five public hospitals (MDS) Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 Change the procedure of data collection. Medical doctors must fill all of the required fields regarding type of injury, nature of
injury, admission in the hospital etc. - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 We are in the process for the development of the Health Monitoring Unit legislation. - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 We are planning to improve the injury data collection, thus the analysis will be more accurate and IR calculations will be correct. - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Desired is an additional FDS reference hospital. Between 2015-2017, FDS data collection has been given up, but quality of MDS based rates has improved. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Nicosia, October 2017 Maria Athanasiadou yes BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: CZECH REPUBLIC October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full not yet 0 just since start of 1 already before 2 2
member (2015) - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 0 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 0 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 0 No response since 2016 A. Total score (max. 8) 2 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 0 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 0 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 No data delivery since 2013 B. Total score (max. 14) 5 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 Only children - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 Only admissions - Completeness of coding more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 2016) participation 0-
(mechanism, injury type, body part) - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 0 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 0 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 12 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 New injury surveillance system to cover all age groups, but only admissions - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 0 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system, but restricted to children Desired is the extension to other age-groups and provision of rates. Between 2015-2017, national legislation on an injury surveillance system for admissions was introduced. However, sharing of data has stopped. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is unlikely without governmental support.
Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Brno, October 2017 Ladislav Planka Informed, no objection, no explicit consent BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: DENMARK October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last 1 Reference population file 2 2 2016) participation
delivery for 2016 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 12 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 1 Collection is certain, but delivery uncertain due to data protection issues (see D) - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 FDS not yet available C. Total score (max. 20) 17 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial 2 2
plan in place for next years? improvements necessary - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 Delivery is uncertain due to data protection issues - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 Uncertain - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent & sustainable system. Between 2015-2017, increasing challenges to maintain the FDS data collection and to secure resources for data handling. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Copenhagen, 10.10.17 Bjarne Laursen OK BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: ESTONIA October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term 2 2
region national level Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent & sustainable system. Desired is an additional FDS reference hospital. Between 2015-2017, the system has been stabilized. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Tallinn, October 2017 Liisi Panov yes BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: FINLAND October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 1 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 6 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Data for 2016 expected, but not yet available - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 Data for 2016 expected, but not yet available - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection no data & no plan 0 no data but 1 Collected & 2 2 2016) participation
ongoing to (re)start restart planned / data delivery uncertain delivery certain - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 1 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 2 - Interest to participate in future EU injury no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of 1 Yes, we remain strongly 2 1 Unclear interest in future EU injury data
information projects? internal resources interested exchange D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent & sustainable system. Desired improvements are the correction of the HD bias and one additional FDS reference hospital. Between 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Data delivery for 2016 is not completed yet. Future in the EU IDB exchange is not secured. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Helsinki, October 2017 Anne Lounamaa Informed, no objection, no explicit consent BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: GERMANY/ BRANDENBURG October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 At state level, but not at federal level - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 participation
- MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 No metadata for 2016 yet - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 No rates for 2016 yet - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 Just one hospital, bias toward admissions, rates valid only for state of Brandenburg - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 11 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 1 Ambulatory treatments collected only one day per week. - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Rates delivered in tables, no file for automatic calculation Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 1 Valid for state of Brandenburg Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital none or below 0 Hardly above 1 well above 2 0 2016)
sample size advised minimum advised minimum (Table 4.1) advised minimum (Table 4.1) FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 16 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Second reference hospital expected - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 6 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable system of the state of Brandenburg. The sample of just one hospital is hardly sufficient, and automatic calculation of rates is not possible due to underreporting of ambulatory treatments. Additional hospitals & MDS collected for all treatments in reference hospitals are desired. Between no substantial changes have taken place, no expansion to other federal states in Germany. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Potsdam, October 2017 Gabriele Elsäßer Informed, no objection, no explicit consent BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: GREECE October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 1 Just one year during JAMIE project - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 0 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 0 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 0 A. Total score (max. 8) 1 Collaboration stopped after JAMIE B. Data delivery (up to 0 Comments - Data delivered in past five years 0 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 Just 2012 - MDS data 2016 delivered 1 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2012 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 0 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 0 Not applicable Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 0 Small and biased sample, no rates - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 3 Data collection 2016) participation
4.1) (Table 4.1) FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 0 There is no system in place D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 0 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Legislation under consideration - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 D. Total score (max. 10) 4 Summary Implementation Assessment Successful pilot in 2013 not continued after the end of the JAMIE project. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place; efforts for a compulsory legal basis did not materialize. Participation in the EU IDB data exchange in the near future is unlikely despite of stable interest of the national partner. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Budapest, 13 Oct 2017 Peter Csizmadia OK BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser OK
- Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 No children - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 0 Just one hospital FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 11 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 1 Not secured - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 1 NDA strives for MoH support - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 6
years more years - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 1 Road traffic injuries not identifiable - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 7 Last delivery 2013 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 1 Data available, but not submitted - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 1 No road accidents identifiable - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 1 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below 1 Sample above 2 0 2016)
minimum expected (<3000) minimum expected (3000+) C. Total score (max. 20) 14 Data available, but not submitted D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 1 unclear - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 0 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 For collection yes, but not for exchange - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 0 Currently no resources - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 unclear D. Total score (max. 10) 3 Future collaboration uncertain Summary Implementation Assessment MDS data at national level available, but collaboration with EU IDB suspended after the end of the JAMIE project. During the re-start of data delivery could not be achieved. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is unlikely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Not available BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: ITALY
October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 Last delivery: Data 2013 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 2012 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 1 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 Last delivery: Data 2013, rates 2012 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the 0 All ages in most 1 all ages in all 2 2 2016) participation
full age-span of the hospitals hospitals - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 2012 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Complete regions for MDS data - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 19 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 Delivery of outstanding data planned for this year - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 Legal basis for FDS - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9
- Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 18.1% (2016) Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2
continue in 2018? - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Recommended is an additional FDS data sample from at least one reference hospital. During 2015-2017, non substantial changes have taken place. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Vilnius, October 2017 Rita Gaidelyte OK BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: LUXEMBOURG October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation 2 or less of the 0 3-4 of the 1 at least 5 2 2
level in past five years eight meetings attended meetings attended meetings attended - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 14 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 2016)
- Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 2 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 10 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Luxembourg, October 2017 Dritan Bejko yes
BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: LATVIA October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 Slightly above 10% (2016) Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 1 Almost 100% admissions 2016)
collection/ analysis? - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. Major shortcomings: Underreporting of ambulatory treated cases; lack of an FDS data sample. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Riga, 16.10.2017 Jana Lepiksone OK BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser OK National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: MALTA October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8
B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Last delivery 2014 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 Last rate for 2013 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 Data collected, but processing is a challenge C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 1 well above advised minimum 2 2 2016)
4.1) (Table 4.1) FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. During 2015-2017, full coverage of all hospital ED patients could be achieved. Data delivery for 2015 and 2016 is not completed yet due to scarce capacities for data handling. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator La Valetta, October 2017 Audrey Galea Informed, no objection, no explicit consent BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: NETHERLANDS
October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 14 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury less than 0 At least home, 1 all injuries 2 2 2016)
categories leisure & school - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 2 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 10 Summary Implementation Excellent and sustainable system. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Future in
Assessment the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Amsterdam, October 2017 Huib Valkenberg Informed, no objection, no explicit consent BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: NORWAY October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 Delayed - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2015 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper 1 Reference 2 2 2015 2016)
or not for last delivery population file for 2016 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements 2 2
perspective for endorsement - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 0 A. Total score (max. 8) 1 Collaboration stopped after JAMIE B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 Just 2013/2014 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 0 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 1 Just children - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 5 Data collection stopped after JAMIE C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 0 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 0 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 2016)
- Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 0 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 0 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 0 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 0 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 0 No system in place D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 0 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 0 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 0 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 0 D. Total score (max. 10) 0 No interested partner identified Summary Implementation Assessment A successful pilot data collection in 2013/2014 stopped after the end of the JAMIE project. During 2015-2017, restart could not be achieved and no interested partner with governmental support could be identified. Participation in the EU IDB data exchange is unlikely for the near future. Approval Function Place, date Name OK
National IDB data administrator Not available BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: PORTUGAL October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 20.5% in 2016 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 2016)
Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 1 Only home & leisure accidents - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 12 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 1 Only home & leisure accidents - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 object, second injury, type of sport not implemented - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 1 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 C. Total score (max. 20) 14 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 1 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 - Capacities in your Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1
organization for injury data collection/ analysis? - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable system. Major shortcomings: Restriction to home & leisure accidents; incomplete implementation of FDS codes. During 2015-2017, the sample could be enlarged and stabilized. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Lisbon, 10 October 2017 Tatiana Alves Yes BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: ROMANIA October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 1 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 0 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2
A. Total score (max. 8) 5 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 2013 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 2012 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 7 Data collection stopped after JAMIE C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 0 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 0 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 0 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 0 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 0 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 0 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 0 - Hospital none or below 0 Hardly above 1 well above 2 0 2016)
sample size advised minimum advised minimum (Table 4.1) advised minimum (Table 4.1) FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 0 There is no system in place D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 0 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 0 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 0 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 0 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 D. Total score (max. 10) 1 Summary Implementation Assessment Successful pilot in 4 hospitals in one region in 2012/2013 did not lead to a permanent implementation. During 2015-2017, the pilot partner remains interested, but neither national funding nor governmental support could be achieved. Continuing in the EU IDB data exchange is likely, but data delivery is unlikely in the near future. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Cluj-Napoca Diana Dulf Informed, no objection, no explicit consent BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes
National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: SWEDEN October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 delayed - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / 1 Collected & delivery 2 2 2016)
years more years - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 B. Total score (max. 14) 13 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 “All hospitals” refer to sample hospitals. - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected 1 Sample above minimum expected 2 2 2016)
(<3000) (3000+) C. Total score (max. 20) 20 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 2 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 9 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is very likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Ljubljana, October 2017 Tina Zupanic yes BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: SPAIN October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as not yet 0 just since start 1 already before 2 2
observer or full member of (2015) - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 1 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 1 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 6 Change of NDA organisation B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 1 2013 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 0 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 2013 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 2013 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 unclear Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 7 Data collection stopped after JAMIE C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 1 Shift to new partner (Catalonia) - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 2013 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 2013 - Outpatients none or strongly 0 biased toward 1 All HDs + all 2 2 2013 2016)
delivery) Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 Yes - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Yes Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 Yes - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 2 Yes B. Total score (max. 14) 12 C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 Yes - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 Yes - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 Yes - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 Yes - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 2 Yes - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 1 Yes Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Yes Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 Yes - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 Yes FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 2 Yes C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 Yes - Improvement None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no 2 2 Yes
or maintenance plan in place for next years? substantial improvements necessary - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 1 Yes - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 Yes - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 Yes D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Summary Implementation Assessment Excellent and sustainable system. During 2015-2017, no substantial changes have taken place. Data delivery 2015 not yet completed. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is likely. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data administrator Ankara, October 2017 Banu Ekinci Yes BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: UK October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term 2 1
perspective for endorsement - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 7 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 1 2016 delayed - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 1 2015 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 2 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 2 - FDS sample 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 Complete and in time 2 0 B. Total score (max. 14) 10 2016 not yet available C. Current system in place (2017) Score Comments Data collection ongoing no data & no plan to (re)start 0 no data but restart planned / data delivery uncertain 1 Collected & delivery certain 2 2 - Age groups not covering the full age-span 0 All ages in most of the hospitals 1 all ages in all hospitals 2 2 - Injury categories less than 0 At least home, leisure & school 1 all injuries 2 2 - Outpatients none or strongly biased toward HD 0 biased toward HD but corrected for IR 1 All HDs + all EDs 2 2 - Completeness of coding (mechanism, injury type, body part) more than 1 code missing 0 just one missing 1 all codes implemented 2 0 Several codes (e.g. mechanism fall, location road) not implemented - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2
Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 1 - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 15 D. Prospects for 2018+ Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2018? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 Yes or no substantial improvements necessary 2 1 - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 In Wales yes - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 1 D. Total score (max. 10) 7 Brexit could affect future collaboration Summary Implementation Assessment Very good and sustained system. Desired is the implementation of all MDS codes and an additional FDS sample from at least one reference hospital. During 2015-2017, quality of the MDS based rates has been improved. Future in the EU IDB data exchange is uncertain due to current political developments and increasing data protection concerns. Approval Function Place, date Name OK National IDB data Swansea, October Ronan Lyons Informed, no objection,