Quality assurance : state of progress

1. Quality assurance : state of progress Sandrine Sleiman, Scientific Committee, Lisbon, 16 June 2009

2. 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

3. 2. National reports : overview of Quality Reports • accessibility of data • timeliness • relevance of information • accuracy, coherence, comparability

4. I) Accessibility of data : Punctuality

5. N° 1051 I) Accessibility of data : Punctuality ST+SQ** Deadline By 30/09/2008 615 reports By 31/10/2008 913 reports **not counting: EDDRA, FAR, test country reports, draft reports (not submitted), deleted reports

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. Situation getting better ?

13. More and more countries are taking into account EMCDDA recommendations content wise !

14. 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…

15. 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

16. 3. Capacity development 1- EU RTX Academies: participation of all the NFPs and interested experts on topics of EU interest. 4 Pillars: 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION