1. How do we determine, and then improve, quality and standards for HIA? 9 th October 2008 9 th International HIA Conference Liverpool Mette Winge Fredsgaard Ben Cave Alan Bond

2. Review panel / Consensus Development Panel Martin BirleyBirleyHIA Tim ChapmanATLAS: Advisory Team for Large Applications Margaret DouglasHealth Scotland Josh FothergillIEMA Liz GreenWelsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit/ Uned Gymorth Asesu Effaith Martin HigginsNHS Lothian Paul IgguldenBen Cave Associates Ltd Erica IsonSelf-employed consultant John KemmWest Midlands Public Health Observatory Ross MarshallEnvironment Agency Owen MetcalfeInstitute of Public Health in Ireland Dawn MorganYorkshire & Humber Public Health Observatory Alex Scott-SamuelIMPACT Salim VohraInstitute of Occupational Medicine Colleen WilliamsDepartment of Health, England

3. Why the need for quality assessment? HIA applied in various areas on various levels Need for structure in order to set a quality standard Consistency and transparency How can a commissioner evaluate the quality of HIA reports?

4. Aims of the project To improve the quality of HIA reports. Establish a set of common criteria of ‘good’ quality HIA (reports).

5. Objectives Develop a quality assessment review package for HIA reports on project level. This tool should assist practitioners and commissioners to assess the quality of completed HIA reports. The target groups are: Public Health Specialists; HIA practitioners and reviewers, commissioners both in the public and private sector, public authorities, planners and developers.

6. The concept of quality assurance and standards How can we establish quality assurance and with this review package? Components relevant to QA of HIA: –Process –Product (report) –Evidence –Outcome (health, values)

7. Theory and Method Preliminary Assessment Revision and consultation Consensus establishment 2 nd draft

8. The review package - 1 st draft Introduction Review procedure Review tool –4 review areas –15 categories –59 sub-categories Overall grades Collation sheet Summary of the overall quality

9. Review areas - 1 st draft Description of the development, the local population and the baseline health conditions Identification and evaluation of key health impacts Identification of impacts Alternatives and mitigation Communication of results

10. Theory and Method Preliminary Assessment Revision and consultation Consensus establishment 2 nd draft

11. Themes from 1 st consultation Simplicity PH and equity focus Evidence, qualitative and quantitative evidence Level of application? Integration? Benchmarking and use of scores?

12. Theory and Method Preliminary Assessment Revision and consultation Consensus establishment 2 nd draft

13. Theory behind the redevelopment of the draft Context: Site description, policy framework, PH profile. Project: Project description. Process: Description of the HIA, stages, methods for identification of potential impacts, identification of population and engagement. Outcome: The risk assessment, methods, recommendations and management plan. Communication of the results: layout, citation, language, bias and non-technical summary. Pawson & Tilley, 1997 ’Realistic Evaluation’

14. Theory and Method Preliminary Assessment Revision and consultation Consensus establishment 2 nd draft

15. Pilot testing - discussion Pilot testing on a sample of HIA development project reports –Test the applicability of the review package. Is the review package applicable for intended users? –Test the appropriateness and outcome of the review package. Identification of good and bad quality HIA reports? How to calibrate the results? Implementation of the review package/review process? How standardized should HIA become?

16. Mette Winge Fredsgaard Ben Cave T 00 44 113 384 5645 E ben.cave@bcahealth.co.uk Thank you!