between target and actual state, between different years or countries, and additional qualitative analysis is necessary to get the full picture. Table 1 contains items and their ratings of the “score card”. Table 1: Items of the “IDB implementation Score Card” and their codes (2017 version) A. Participation in EU-exchange Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale Membership as not yet just since start of already before Duration of observer or full BRIDGE-HEALTH BRIDGE-HEALTH membership is a member (2015) strong indicator for network the future Participation 2 or less of the 3-4 of the meetings at least 5 meetings Presence is level in past eight meetings attended attended essential, because five years attended meetings are also training events Government No or only weak only for duration of for longer term Governmental endorsement support BRIDGE-HEALTH endorsement organizations are perspective for considered as most reliable partners Responsive to only after many after 1 or 2 within deadline Responsiveness is information reminders/calls reminders an indicator for requests of reliability coordinator B. Data delivery Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale Data delivered none data delivered for data delivered for Duration of data in past five just one year two or more years delivery is a strong years indicator for the 2016) future MDS data 2016 Not available Not yet but complete and in Indicates timeliness delivered expected time of delivery Accuracy of more than 40% between 10% and less than 10% Indicates striving coding (most unknown 40% unknown unknown for improving data current quality delivery) Incidence rate Not available Only on paper or Reference Core deliverable of not for last delivery population file for IDB 2016 Consistency of IR not available not consistent or Consistent Indicates striving case definition unclear for high quality (IDB & HDR or estimates EDR) Scope of data Two or more Just one “warning No “warning flag” Indicates striving collection “warning flags” flag” for high quality estimates FDS sample Not available Not yet but Complete and in Indicates striving 2016 expected time for high quality estimates C. Current system in place Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale
between target and actual state, between different years or countries, and additional qualitative analysis is necessary to get the full picture. Table 1 contains items and their ratings of the “score card”. Table 1: Items of the “IDB implementation Score Card” and their codes (2017 version) A. Participation in EU-exchange Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale Membership as observer or full member not yet just since start of BRIDGE-HEALTH (2015) already before BRIDGE-HEALTH Duration of membership is a strong indicator for the future Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 3-4 of the meetings attended at least 5 meetings attended Presence is essential, because meetings are also training events Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support only for duration of BRIDGE-HEALTH for longer term endorsement Governmental organizations are considered as most reliable partners Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls after 1 or 2 reminders within deadline Responsiveness is an indicator for reliability B. Data delivery Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale Data delivered in past five years none data delivered for just one year data delivered for two or more years Duration of data delivery is a strong indicator for the future MDS data 2016 delivered Not available Not yet but expected complete and in time Indicates timeliness of delivery Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown between 10% and 40% unknown less than 10% unknown Indicates striving for improving data quality Incidence rate Not available Only on paper or not for last delivery Reference population file for 2016 Core deliverable of IDB Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available not consistent or unclear Consistent Indicates striving for high quality estimates Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” Indicates striving for high quality estimates FDS sample 2016 Not available Not yet but expected Complete and in time Indicates striving for high quality estimates C. Current system in place Question 0 point answer 1 point answer 2 points answer Rationale network coordinator 2016)