BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: LATVIA October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments 2 - Membership as 0 1 2 not yet just since start already before observer or full of member (2015) 2 - Participation 2 or less of the 0 3-4 of the 1 at least 5 2 level in past eight meetings meetings meetings five years attended attended attended 2 - Government No or only weak 0 only for duration 1 for longer 2 endorsement support of term perspective for endorsement 2 - Responsive to only after many 0 after 1 or 2 1 within 2 information reminders/calls reminders deadline requests of A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments 2 - Data delivered none 0 data delivered 1 data delivered 2 in past five for just one year for two or years more years 2016) 2 - MDS data 2016 Not available 0 Not yet but 1 complete and 2 delivered expected in time 1 - Accuracy of more than 40% 0 between 10% 1 less than 10% 2 Slightly above coding (most unknown and 40% unknown 10% (2016) current unknown delivery) 2 Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper 1 Reference 2 or not for last population file delivery for 2016 1 - Consistency of 0 1 2 IR not available not consistent or Consistent case definition unclear (IDB & HDR or EDR) 1 Scope of data Two or more Just one No 2 Almost 100% “warning collection admissions “warning flags” “warning flag” flag”
BRIDGE-Health IDB Vienna, October 2017 Rupert Kisser yes National IDB Implementation Score Card Report Country: LATVIA October 2017 A. Participation in EU-data exchange Score Comments - Membership as observer or full member not yet 0 just since start of (2015) 1 already before 2 2 - Participation level in past five years 2 or less of the eight meetings attended 0 3-4 of the meetings attended 1 at least 5 meetings attended 2 2 - Government endorsement perspective for No or only weak support 0 only for duration of 1 for longer term endorsement 2 2 - Responsive to information requests of only after many reminders/calls 0 after 1 or 2 reminders 1 within deadline 2 2 A. Total score (max. 8) 8 B. Data delivery (up to Score Comments - Data delivered in past five years none 0 data delivered for just one year 1 data delivered for two or more years 2 2 - MDS data 2016 delivered Not available 0 Not yet but expected 1 complete and in time 2 2 - Accuracy of coding (most current delivery) more than 40% unknown 0 between 10% and 40% unknown 1 less than 10% unknown 2 1 Slightly above 10% (2016) Incidence rate Not available 0 Only on paper or not for last delivery 1 Reference population file for 2016 2 2 - Consistency of case definition (IDB & HDR or EDR) IR not available 0 not consistent or unclear 1 Consistent 2 1 Scope of data collection Two or more “warning flags” Just one “warning flag” No “warning flag” 2 1 Almost 100% admissions 2016)
Sustainability%20Report.docx