/ EMCDDA, Reitox Heads of Focal Points
Lisbon, 23-24May – 2013 / 48thmeeting
Agenda item: RTX/48/01c
47th Reitox Meeting Heads of Focal Points – main comments and conclusions

Preliminary remark

Following the changes made to the structure and contents of the Reitox Heads of Focal Points meeting, it has been agreed with the Focal Points that a summary presenting the main comments and conclusions would be provided as a complementary document, which helps to keep a memory of some of the issues/comments/suggestions discussed during those meetings.

Being by essence prepared for internal use, this document has no formal status and cannot be considered as the official report of the meeting. The only official and binding document to be adopted and to be published on the EMCDDA website is the “Conclusions and To Do list” document drafted on the basis of the discussions and points agreed between the EMCDDA and the Reitox Focal Points.

Pre-Reitox Meeting main comments – plenary session

Systemic Review of Tools

  • NFPs are interested in being better informed about the scope and purpose of those changes.
  • They voiced some concerns about the potential impact of some of the changes for the work of the NFPs, for instance the launch of the Annual Report, as the changes have been decided without assessing the potential consequences for them.
  • The intention to present more graphs and figures and less text looks interesting but might be misleading as there is still some lack of comparability, so there is a need for explaining differences and limitations in interpretation.
  • Project of assessment of 5KI meetings: is a very little piece in the whole Systemic Review process, should be integrated in an overarching view about how we collect, analyse, interpret and report on data to various audiences. What kind of products are aiming at which audiences? NFPs would welcome a comprehensive and detailed overview.
  • The multiplication of products or elements around the new EDR package, in particular the DITS (note: now the Perspectives On Drugs – PODs), raises the issue of the role of the NFPs in presenting/explaining all those products and contents.
  • Involvement of NFPs is moreunclear than it was in 2011-2012.

Supply Indicators Conference

  • NFPs feel confident to continue reporting data they already provide.
  • Are lacking information about what the consequences for reporting could be for them.
  • Not clear what would be the next step in the process, draft conclusions unclear about role of NFPs in future cooperation with Law Enforcement
  • National Correspondent should not lead at creating de facto another parallel network (like in some Eastern countries where have been established separate Supply NFP and RTX NFP). Lack of vision and details about how this cooperation at national level could work.
  • Not a single session dedicated to impact on work of NFPs as far as resources are concerned. It will be in any case necessary to establish a national coordination structure/process.
  • NFPs feel that not enough space was reserved to the Supply Reduction Indicators conference, and formally ask to have a specific session on this issue at the next Reitox Week.

FONTE

  • Steering Group working very well, no major issues, very positive and constructive meeting.
  • What remains unclear is the role of structured questionnaires in the current national reporting system (no link between FONTE and qualitative information). Role of qualitative and contextual information in the future is not clear (comment also made in relation to the new EDR package).

Reitox Accreditation System

  • As requested by EMCDDA, NFPs have identified a few NFPs volunteering for the technical meeting planned for March, who will then discuss a proposal to be presented at the May meeting.

Work Programme 2013

  • NFPs have been asked to provide comments, and the process so far has not been really fruitful, as NFPs do not perceive the impact of the consultation on the draft of the WP (basically it is already sent to the Members of the Management Board). There is a clearly defined role for the Scientific Committee and the Management Board (MB) for taking decisions, which means that any suggestions for changes should be channeled through respective MB members, so NFPs do not see the need for a formal consultation.

Systemic Review of Tools – Plenary

Revision contents, quality of inputs and consistency reporting tools

  • As an answer to the questionsmade by the Reitox spokespersons, the EMCDDA confirmed that it is foreseen to revise on a stepwise basis the coherence between Structured Questionnaires, Statistical Tables, National Reports and Country Profiles, as intrinsic part of the Reporting Cycle to be discussed in another session to take place later in this meeting.
  • For 2013, it is planned to revise reporting tools on Treatment, Harm Reduction and Social Reintegration, following the now standard consultation procedure (presentation of first critical assessment at May Reitox HFP meeting, work on possible changes and improvements during the Summer, presentation and discussion conclusions and first draft proposal to Autumn Reitox Technical Meeting, and adoption at November Reitox HFP meeting).

Quality Assurance, statistical quality, FONTE

  • Answer from EMCDDA to question on Statistical Quality in the WP 2013, as well as in the 3-y WP 2013-2015: the project starts from the recognition that we should be following criteria that have been defined by international statistical organisations. There are lots of areas of our instruments and tools where we would like to improve the standards and principles. Reference is being made to the EUROSTAT charter. There is also a need to harmonise the terms that we use for data collection.
  • The idea is that in 2013 we make our plans and then we implement in 2014 and 2015.
  • A new Cross-Units Project (CUP) will be established early in 2013 to develop a comprehensive Quality Assurance Policy within the EMCDDA, putting under a same umbrella various ongoing and future activities.
  • There is also a need to link and to improve the quality feedback in areas where it is not yet done, but also where it will be necessary to change, in line with the reporting needs and structure, this will be done in parallel with the revision of reporting tools foreseen as part of the Reporting Cycle.
  • We discussed at the 46th Reitox HFP meeting that EMCDDA and NFPs would welcome the idea of establishing a kind of formal “Data coherence group”: we need to internally assess better what we ask, why and how, as part of quality assurance.We haven’t looked at how it could work, probably it could be articulated with the FONTE Steering Group but we are just exploring the options and the feasibility. The EMCDDA will get a more clear picture on this, and will discuss it with the Focal Points, in the second half of 2013.
  • FONTE
  • Only limited developments are foreseen in the future, for instance we will soon have a new feature allowing to produce automatically a summary of what has been uploaded (content table).
  • EMCDDA and Focal Points will continue to work on the development of XML tools for extracting and uploading the TDI data into FONTE (see training on FONTE XML 22/5)
  • There is an ongoing effort to make FONTE useful internally and externally, one of the issues is the procedure needed to change data in the database, EMCDDA is working on that.

National Reports and national reporting package

  • For some NFPs, there is a feeling that the system is becoming more and more complex, and that it would be useful to take a step back, to look at what we have and to cut in what we don’t need (see also next point: Reference framework for reporting).
  • EMCDDA explains that we are an agency and a network with more responsibilities, more things to do, and not necessarily more means, which is why the Systemic Review of Tools was launched two years ago. The main part of the exercise however was and still is to see how to improve the work and procedures internally, in a stepwise approach, as in the meantime we are still expected to provide information and analysis to our stakeholders.
  • In such a process, priorities have to be defined, taking into account the budgetary impact and constraints, and this is what has been done with the three-year Work Programme 2013-2015. We intend by 2013 to attain a very good new annual report package, in 2014 we will have a new website (essentially all data remain in one place, we need to have new coherence between all things that are available), and by the end of 2015 we will have a new web-based structure to present our multiple products containing national data.
  • In the meantime, we will work every year on the reporting tools in parallel with their revision, to assess how we aregoing to re-structure and organise the national reports and other sources of national information (see session on National Reports). The objective here is to have a comprehensive proposal for a reshaped national reporting package in November 2015 (with intermediate progress and steps in November 2013 and 2014 as a result of the revisions of reporting tools agreed with the Reporting Cycle).
  • Everybody is conscious that if the system as to be changed, it will have an impact for all countries, and so the issue needs to be explored carefully. The priority has been put first on what EMCDDA can/should improve internally, and this is what we are doing.

Reference framework for reporting

  • In the comment made by some NFPs that the system is becoming more and more complex, there was also the question about how all the information being collected fits or helps building a comprehensive picture of the drug situation (a recurrent question from the NFPs).
  • The EMCDDA is conscious of this need and is working on a project of “Handbook II on NDOs” to be published in 2014 that would address this issue among other topics of relevance for translating Drug Monitoring into practice.
  • In that context a new draft comprehensive reference framework will be developed and tested for the Reitox Spring Course on Contemporary Approaches of Drug Monitoring that will take place in Prague in April, and that will serve as a basis for Handbook II (2014).
  • The revision process on the reporting tools on Treatment, Harm Reduction and Social Reintegration will feed the process, as it will also address the issue of consistency, overlaps and complementarity between the different tools and products (Country Profiles).

Outlines new European Drug Report

  • Better for some countries to launch the report (more capacity before the summer). Welcome idea to change if it is for better, but not sure: the current report is very well accepted, very comprehensive. Have some doubts concerning what is said: what people read is the printed version, not sure they will use so much the web version. Mixed question/comment on DITS: looks like a good idea but how is it going to work after 2013. How many topics can we imagine to present like new things every year? Some topics might have to be presented every year, or every second year, how to accommodate? What kind of impact is it going to have on our national reporting, because it is following the same structure than the Annual Report so far.
  • EMCDDA has also some doubts but the there is no financial capacity anymore to continue with the same format and the web-based approach will bring new audiences.
  • DITS will be launched in quite a big number the firs year but it is clear that some topics will have to be re-updated regularly.
  • Good idea to change the system and to have a more interactive system. Limited topics to be covered, some of them in consultation with NFPs, some of them in line with some national data. It would be good to know in advance what are the topics that will be covered, so the NFPs could prepare their report accordingly, so they are sure that they can provide the EMCDDA the info needed.
  • How the DITS will be updated?
  • EDR: have controversial views about the tables and graphs comparing countries. If we increase the useof graphs, the comments and caveats will disappear. EMCDDA to include a methodological note on difficulties or limitations.
  • Doubts about deadline for consultation in February March, which does not fit with the timing of financial activity reports and requests for balance payment, which is end of February for NFPs. EMCDDA agreed to change the deadline for consultation.
  • It looks very interesting, has implications for national reporting. Would like to make sure that we keep the topic in the agenda. Does not see exacty what might be the input of the NFP for the consultation.
  • EMCDDA: we send you the report, you give us a scientific feedback, if possible. We have also the scientific committee doing that. The main thing we ask you is to check the national data that are mentioned.
  • NFPs welcome the idea of changing the report and make it shorter, more interactive and more timely, but have questions about real impact and feasibility. They ask the EMCDDA to keep permanently the topic at the agenda and to assess the whole experience and process after the launch.

Parallel Sessions I: Exploring alternative option for National Reports

GROUP I

  • Short (1H) but very interesting ‘tour de table’ on how useful NR is as tool for data collection, at national level, but also as an output for EU and national audiences
  • Introduction / overview of evolution of the NR:
  • NFPs have adapted stepwise their national situation to the EMCDDA NR requirements (i.e. two reports from the past turned into one serving both national and EU demands)
  • Until few years, the NR was the most visible output at NFP level
  • Still debate whether NR has to be stand-alone document or just yearly update
  • Mutual consciousness that check list and NR guidelines have increased over the years
  • Information from NR not always visible in EMCDDA AR (but more visible in CO, statistical bulletin)
  • Although for some EMCDDA units the NR remains the main information source, the time is right to reflect whether NR should become part of the overall data collection tools
  • It was quite interesting to see the differences between the countries present with regard to the use and importance of their NR :
  • For some NFPs, the NR remains a very important tool, at national level, to both collect information and to report back to national and EU audiences, although its frequency could be altered (e.g. every 2nd or 3rd year) or only updates could be reported every year + also the way to publish the NR could be revised (e.g. web based with only a short summary published for instance for the decision makers)
  • Some would prefer to keep the choice to have a annual, stand-alone NR as it is the only way to present the drug related information in a harmonised way at national level.
  • Some NFPs explained that the NR is the only way to bring together an extremely large amount of information in one single place and without the NR a lot of that information wouldn’t be collected anymore. Also the fact that all this information is being analysed in 1 single place is an added value, as it helps to establish the links between the different areas (e.g. prevalence, market, crime, etc.)
  • For some NFPs, the NR is a big reporting burden and due to time lack they have to limit themselves to data collection and analysis but no time left to interpret the information which is important for policy makers
  • Other NFPs could more easily ‘get rid’ of their NR for the EMCDDA as they only use it for the EU level and report, through other reports, to their national authorities.
  • Some NFPs questioned the basis / rationale of the EMCDDA to change the Annual Reporting and would like to understand better the communication strategy behind this (important to define WHO and HOW you want to reach WHAT audience with this report).
  • All agreed that this was only the first reflection on NR and that further investment should be done, either by organising a RTX Academy on the topic or by organising a specific longer session on this at the May 2013 HFP meeting
  • As a short conclusion, we could say that:
  • On the question whether we need stand alone reports the answer is probably “Yes” but whether we need to continue doing it the way we do it currently is not sure. We could think about a way to have info collected differently and that the EMCDDA could return this info to the MS in order to report differently (i.e. CO)
  • The EU is a unique system in the world to have such a standardised and comparable data set available and before to throw away the bathing water with the baby in it, we should think twice!
  • The new EMCDDA AR approach is more dynamic and cheaper but we should remind ourselves that it is easier to write a 20-pages summary when you have a good pre-analysis of ground information because if not, the EU summary will be weak.

GROUP II