6020.0: Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 8:45 AM

Abstract #6876

How to establish a statewide emergency department (ED) injury surveillance program: Three states describe their unique paths

Jennifer A. Taylor, MPH, Project Director, Emergency Department Surveillance and Coordinated Injury Prevention project (ED SCIP), Massachusetts Department of Public Health: Bureau of Health Statistics, Research and Evaluation, 250 Washington Street, 6th floor, Boston, MA 02180-4619, 617-624-5665, jennifer.taylor@state.ma.us, Jon Roesler, MS, Epidemiologist, Minnesota Department of Public Health: Center for Health Promotion, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 300, PO Box 64882, St. Paul, MN 55164-0882, 651-281-9841, jon.roesler@health.state.mn.us, Leroy Frazier, MSPH, CHES, Director, Injury Prevention Division, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Mills/Jarrett Building, Box 101106, Columbia, SC 29211, (803) 737-3925, FRAZIEL@columb61.dhec.state.sc.us, and Mark Kinde, MPH, Injury and Violence Prevention Unit, Minnesota Department of Health: Center for Health Promotion, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 400, St. Paul, MN 55101, 651.281.9832, mark.kinde@health.state.mn.us.

Emergency Department data provide morbidity information that have not been readily available and further expand the injury picture drawn by hospitalization and death data. Depending on your state's infrastructure and inter-agency agreements, different paths may be used to establish an ED-based injury surveillance program. Minnesota, South Carolina, and Massachusetts started their programs using very different approaches: one state's system is based on voluntary participation of a representative sample of hospitals, another is based on a public-private partnership between the health department and a consortium of hospitals, and the third is based on a state legal requirement to report ED visits. Special features of these systems include their adaptability to other state and community infrastructures, their abilities to use surveillance evaluation criteria, and their adaptability to regulatory or bureaucratic differences. Participants will share lessons learned, barriers to data acquisition and participation, and offer data dissemination suggestions. This session will be organized into valuable take home lessons and technical assistance. Variable lists, surveillance products, and data summaries will be available.

Issues covered:

Reporting: Which is the best way for your state - voluntary or mandatory?

Organizational infrastructure: What you need to get the job done.

Hospital/participant recruitment: Getting to yes.

Database building: Programming, management, evaluation and quality. Linkage with other data sources: EMS, FARS, Trauma registries.

Data dissemination: To whom, when, and how much.

Learning Objectives: By the end of this session, participants should be able to: 1. Understand the basics of establishing an ED-based injury surveillance system. 2. Apply this information to their state or community 3. Devise a voluntary or mandatory strategy to recruit participants. 4. Identify what tools these 3 states are currently utilizing to describe injury. 5. Identify barriers and construct success strategies. 6. Discuss data dissemination techniques and outreach to injury prevention partners

Keywords: Data/Surveillance, Injury

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.

The 128th Annual Meeting of APHA