Quality assurance : state of progress
Sandrine Sleiman, Scientific Committee, Lisbon, 16 June 2009
1. Quality assurance : latest developments
-
New guidelines for national reporting for
2009
-
New criteria for the assessment of the
implementation of the 5 KI
-
Updated quality reports
2. National reports : overview of Quality
Reports
-
accessibility of data
-
timeliness
-
relevance of information
-
accuracy, coherence, comparability
I) Accessibility of data : Punctuality
Bulgaria
Italy
08-03-2009
Turkey
Submission of NR 2008
16-02-2009
Sweden
Croatia
Estonia
Portugal
Latvia
Norway
Slovakia
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
France
Hungary
6
Spain
Denmark
5
Germany
Romania
4
Finland
Lithuania
3
Poland
Luxembourg
2
Czech
Austria
1
UK
Cyprus
08-11-2008
Slovenia
28-11-2008
Nether.
18-12-2008
Ireland
07-01-2009
Belgium
27-01-2009
19-10-2008
0
I) Accessibility of data : Punctuality ST+SQ**
Punctuality ST+SQ
N°
1051
Deadline
1200
By 30/09/2008
615 reports
1000
800
By 31/10/2008
913 reports
600
400
200
0
02-05-2008
01-06-2008
01-07-2008
31-07-2008
30-08-2008
29-09-2008
29-10-2008
28-11-2008
28-12-2008
27-01-2009
26-02-2009
28-03-2009
27-04-2009
**not counting: EDDRA, FAR, test country reports,
draft reports (not submitted), deleted reports
27-05-2009
I) Accessibility of data NR
2008 : 3535 pages **
The shortest report was 58 pages in length and
the longest 221
** No report from EL and MT
II) Timeliness (reporting year 2007-2008)
• NR contains in general most recent data
available at the FP, although few exceptions
• Time lag between study is carried out and
results published = constraint
• When no new data available many countries
mention when new figures will be published
III) Relevance of information
• Many interesting information reported
• Level of details varying from sections and
from countries to others
• A few countries doing “cumulative” reporting :
→ difficult to find changes
→ risk to loose an important new information
“hidden” in old text (e.g. one number only
changed)
IV) Accuracy
• Methodologies of studies are usually well
described BUT with some exceptions such as
for DRD definitions, more details are needed,
this is adressed in QR without much effect so
far …
• Few cases of information not reported in the
NR although existing-available data (legal
and institutional framework)
IV) Coherence
• Few discrepencies between figures in STs
and NR
• Data reported in ST not analysed in the NR
and data reported in NR not reported in STs
e.g. cohort studies in DRD, drug-related
crime, ST 12 on prisons…→ complementarity
of NR and other tools could be improved
IV) Comparability
• Reasonable level of adherence to guidelines
• Overall trends by gender, over time and
geographical areas are described
• In some countries, it is still too early to have
many information on trends
Situation getting better ?
More and more countries are taking into
account EMCDDA recommendations
content wise !
After all, which changes ?
• Comments included in the QR are more
detailed
• QR becoming more consistent
• Criteria for qualitative sections were adapted
• Became more interactive tool, more feedback
on the feedback…
Challenges
• New structure, new guidelines → new QR
• Increase complementarity with other QA
tools, e.g. 5KI assessment
• Better integration of Fonte feedbacks for
more consistency
• Further improvement of Fonte
• QR as an opportunity for improvement, useful
tool at national level
3. Capacity development
4 Pillars:
1- EU RTX Academies: participation of all the NFPs
and interested experts on topics of EU interest.
2- National RTX Academies: national trainings and/or
conferences for specific interest for the host NFP
3- Direct Financial contribution: upon request within the
framework or developing the implementation of the 5
key Indicators.
4- Main tool for technical assistance for candidate and
and potentail candidate countries
3. Capacity development
EU RTX Academies:
• 1st Academy of the year is always linked to the
mandatory Selected Issue
• To define the other topics:
 input from the scientific units taking into account
the EMCDDA 3 YWP
 input from RTX unit after having analysed and
drafted all the Quality reports
Input from the NFPs
CONSTRAINT: BUDGET
Please find all PP and related documents on the
RTX Academy web page
http://academy.emcdda.europa.eu
Username: ReitoxAcademy
Password: qwe123
xavier.poos@emcdda.europa.eu
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION