injury type, body part) - Incidence rates 2 IR not available 0 only crude rate 1 standardized 2 or based on for age and catchment sex Geo-coverage 2 IR not available 0 Valid only for a 1 Valid at 2 region national level Sampling of 2 Just by 0 rational 1 Validated 2 Validation not hospitals availability of sampling but no sample necessary due to hospitals validation check large sample - Hospital 2 none or below 0 Hardly above 1 well above 2 sample size advised minimum advised advised minimum (Table minimum 4.1) (Table 4.1) 0 FDS data none 0 Sample below 1 Sample above 2 minimum minimum expected expected (<3000) (3000+) C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS 2 no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 Extracted from data collection central health continue in register 2016? - Improvement 1 None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial 2 Search for FDS or maintenance improvements reference plan in place necessary hospital for next years? - Legal basis for 2 0 1 2 No plans Ongoing In place or MDS data substantial very likely collection? discussion 1 - Capacities in Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay 1 Sufficient or 2 your the same will increase organization for injury data collection/ analysis? - Interest to 2 no 0 Yes, but 1 Yes, we 2 participate in depending on remain future EU injury availability of strongly information internal interested projects? resources D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Sustainable system. Main shortcomings are the lack of FDS data. Implementation Assessment Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature Oslo Johan Lund National IDB data OK for JAMIE final
injury type, body part) - Incidence rates IR not available 0 only crude rate or based on catchment 1 standardized for age and sex 2 2 Geo-coverage IR not available 0 Valid only for a region 1 Valid at national level 2 2 Sampling of hospitals Just by availability of hospitals 0 rational sampling but no validation check 1 Validated sample 2 2 Validation not necessary due to large sample - Hospital sample size none or below advised minimum 0 Hardly above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 1 well above advised minimum (Table 4.1) 2 2 FDS data none 0 Sample below minimum expected (<3000) 1 Sample above minimum expected (3000+) 2 0 C. Total score (max. 20) 18 D. Prospects for 2016-2017 Score Comments - Will the MDS data collection continue in 2016? no 0 Not secured yet 1 yes 2 2 Extracted from central health register - Improvement or maintenance plan in place for next years? None or just draft 0 in consultation 1 No substantial improvements necessary 2 1 Search for FDS reference hospital - Legal basis for MDS data collection? No plans 0 Ongoing substantial discussion 1 In place or very likely 2 2 - Capacities in your organization for injury data collection/ analysis? Will be reduced 0 Scarce but stay the same 1 Sufficient or will increase 2 1 - Interest to participate in future EU injury information projects? no 0 Yes, but depending on availability of internal resources 1 Yes, we remain strongly interested 2 2 D. Total score (max. 10) 8 Summary Implementation Assessment Sustainable system. Main shortcomings are the lack of FDS data. Signatures Function Place, date Name Signature National IDB data Oslo Johan Lund OK for JAMIE final
Sustainability%20Report.docx