1. Quality feedback: Validation of TDI Standard Table submitted in 2005 (2004 data) Sandrine Sleiman, Xavier Poos September 2006

2. TDI and Quality Assurance Quality assurance at EMCDDA TDI data under …

3. I) Quality Assurance in data reporting Tool for EMCDDA Tool for NFPs and their partners To improve quality of data collection instruments To improve quality of data sets To reduce workload in validation phase To improve credibility of EMCDDA and NFPs

4. As an example : EMCDDA deals with a vast amount of information: 2002: 493 data tables 2004: 723 data tables 2005: 759 data tables and 3111 pages of NRs

5. Quality Management at the EMCDDA Data collection instruments Protocols Guidelines Validation National data providers Quality feedback National data providers Quality Control Quality Assurance EMCDDA – Data input, internal data management and feedback Data submission Protocol Guidelines Validation Data collection instruments

6. Quality Control and standard tables Compliance with guidelines : Deadline Methodology instruction References (bibliography, abbreviation,…) Reliability of data : Calculation Consistency with previous data

7. II) Overview of implementation level of TDI indicator (**) n=26 (**) Implementation Profile for selected indicators (profiles sent to NFP for check/approval early May 2006)

8. a) Respect of deadline 1st table: 6th sep 2005 last table: 25th jan 2006 17 countries have matched the deadline for uploading 2 countries have uploaded the table with delay

9. b) TDI respect of deadline in comparison …

10. c) Control of double counting (n=19) Double counting is reported to be checked in 13 countries Double counting is not checked in 6 countries

11. d) Rating of overall clarity/understanding of TDI info in national reports

12. II) Main problems during validation period Approximately 40 initial mails have been sent for data clarification 81 queries (query = each single question sent to NFPs regarding data uploaded)

13. III) Common problems observed Quantitative information 46% of all queries are related to missing values, errors of calculation, not understandable data, wrong data reported and/or reported in the wrong place. Qualitative information 37 % of all queries are related to clarifications of provided data, abbreviation used unclear, term/definition unclear, references provided but unclear, methodological info provided but unclear. Other problems: Not available values missing Inconsistencies (discrepancies between years, between STs and NRs) Upload interface Most of those errors can be avoided

14. IV) Future developments Quality should include reducing surprises by highlighting realities in time to prepare for possibilities… Foster development of quality control and assurance at NFP level More systematised quality control (FONTE) Further consolidation of EMCDDA quality reports

15. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION quality.assurance@emcdda.europa.eu