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. 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
Data flows increase, validation work also ….

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 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

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. Username: ReitoxAcademy
Please find all PP and related documents on the RTX Academy web page
Username: ReitoxAcademy
Password: qwe123

19. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION