1. Washington State LOVES Electronic Data Transfer
EDT
Washington State LOVES Electronic Data Transfer WA
4-Ever
Staci Hoff, PhD
Research Director and FARS Supervisor
Research And Data Division, WTSC

2. Going paperless
2012
Fars unit 100% paper, from the crash report to the coding forms
Paper-based case management files
Can we crosswalk the FARS data to the State data and run a SAS report?
Eliminate coding onto paper forms and printing crash reports
Make better use of electronic data
Data reports could only be run AFTER the data was entered into MDE
Implemented the WA CRSS program

3. EDT in Washington State-2016
At that time, the Washington State Patrol was willing to share data, so we extended a contract with WSP through the TRCC to develop the XSD/XML data feed to NHTSA
$13,400 for WSP contract – Fall 2017
Initial Mapping with WSP was four 2-hour meetings = 8 hours and about 8-10 hours of “homework”
<20 hours x 4 WTSC Staff
THEN, WSDOT decided they would share data with NHTSA for EDT = five more 2-hour mapping meetings = 8 hours and about 20 hours of “homework” – Winter 2017/2018
<30 hours x 4 WTSC Staff, <10 hours x 3 WSDOT Staff, hours x 1 WSDOT Staff to initiate, test, and finalize the feed (in-kind contribution from WSDOT)
EDT went live in July 2018 AND CHANGED OUR LIVES!
Today:
Annual review of crosswalk following SWT (updated by FARS Contractors)
Setting the confidence intervals through EDT Manager
Monitoring changes to the WSDOT data and feed (new PTCR launch January 1, 2020)
New FARS/CRSS MDE applications to launch in 2020

4. Data Quality Benefits and Efficiencies
The OLD Way
The NEW Way
Run reports against the statewide database for
correcting
location information (Raw officer
reported data vs WSDOT location derived
information) -
All location derived
information from WSDOT pre
populates the FARS/CRSS MDE
Crash
information directly from officer reports. For
example, age would have to be confirmed from
licensing records.
Crash
information after it has already passed
through 2 separate business/edit checks built into
other systems (age is now accurate)
Multiple EOY SAS reports to check
basic crash
information (demographics, location, contributing
circumstances, etc.) against the statewide database
and
Deeper QA review (ex:
accurate race/ethnicity)
more EOY time to chase down toxicology, death
records, and EMS reports.
100% manual coding = full capacity of staff -
~40
50% manual
coding = increased capacity (ex:
pedestrian case file reviews for advisory council)
FARS
case structure manually created
EDT creates the case
structure
Correct Collision Report numbers from
human data
entry error
NO more human data entry error

5. What to look out for with EDT
You’ve got to understand the ins-n-outs of the data that is being sent for EDT
When, why and how does data get changed from what the officer reported
What tools and processes are used to derive location information
Trafficway identifiers for ramps and state routes/highways/freeways and County Roads
Total lanes in roadway – probably counted differently in FARS than in statewide database
Be aware of changes to the system and business/edit checks
Just because it is good today, doesn’t mean the same for tomorrow!
How is the statewide database different from FARS? Not just the crosswalk, but also case inclusion/exclusion criteria
Accepting supplements and locking EDT cases
FARS Quality Control Reports – reach out to your region office/Gov’s office regarding possible impacts to these reports
Large increase in level 4 cases

6. What we did not change We still use our own collision report
The EDT generated crash report is nice, but once staff are trained on one report, it is hard to get used to coding from another report.
The narrative and diagrams are only transmitted on electronic reports (~90% of cases)
We still maintain electronic case files with source materials, including crash reports and supplements
We retained some EOY checks since the case may be updated by WSDOT after the case is “locked” to EDT

7. EDT Confidence Intervals
Washington FARS/CRSS Staff – “we either have to look at it or we don’t”
We are currently implementing a 2 color schema, good or review
No Review
Review
Manual Coding

8. The Crosswalk
FARS is not MMUCC, but MMUCC has drawn a lot from the experience from FARS. While MMUCC mapping is MUCH more literal than EDT mapping, having the crosswalk will help assist in mapping.
SHSP reports for both fatalities (FARS) and serious injuries (State) – the crosswalk helps to ensure you are defining things most similar in disparate datasets

9. EDT and Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS)
FARS Cooperative Agreement and “Other Data Collection Activities” = CRSS
PARSE Stratification → Stratification QC → QC Selected Case Coding
(~5,000/yr) (~1,000/yr) (~550/yr)
EDT
EDT
More human resources dedicated to Stratification and Listing Quality Control. EDT does make a few mistakes in stratification, but those mistakes are becoming consistent so the QC’er knows what to look for. No more “common misunderstandings” between lister and QC’er = less errors
QC EDT (Logic can’t fix the <1% mis-stratification

10. In the Fin…
The computer is not replacing the coder, I still need all my FTEs
The data is improved not only due to direct transfer and no data entry error, but also more human resources dedicated to quality and completeness
EDT made it possible for us to continue supporting the CRSS program without requiring additional resources (1 FTE + EDT = WA CRSS)
EDT mitigated the capacity required to deal with a 20% single year increase in fatalities
Questions? Thank you!
Staci Hoff, PhD, Research Director
(360)