European facility survey questionnaire (EFSQ)

Treatment CUP

22

“We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”

33

Background, rationale and purpose of the EFSQ

Increase our knowledge about the characteristics, treatment service options and quality assurance mechanisms (EMCDDA Treatment Strategy, 2012).

44

55

66

77

Expert meeting (19 September 2012):

'Basic domains and variables in the surveys seemed to overlap, although it was acknowledged that objectives to conduct facility surveys varied between countries. A common dataset was considered useful to improve comparability within and between countries.'

88

The EFSQ: Process

National surveys from France, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden and international surveys like the TUF, SAMSHA and the correlation 'data collection protocol for specialist harm reduction agencies' were analysed.

Aim: produce a short, core set of questions common to existing national questionnaires

99

Deutscher Kerndatensatz zur Dokumentationim Bereich der Suchtkrankenhilfe

Relevant sections:

Contact details

Ownership/Sponsorship (public/private, etc)

Type of facility (out/inp, lta,etc)

Capacity/Census

Access

Target group

Interventions (no questions available)

Cost/Payment

Staffing (number per profession and qualification?)

Quality management ?? What??

Partnerships

1010

Greek treatment facility survey

Contact details (name, address, postcode)Ownership/Sponsorship (public,private,ngo, etc)Type of facility (out/inp,prison, other, etc)Census (no capacity question for inp)No access questions re. opening hours (but for specific client

groups) Target groupsInterventionsNo cost questionsStaffing (number full/part time/volunteers; qualification) Quality management (training, Partnerships

1111

Swedish treatment facility survey

Contact details (name, address, postcode)Ownership/Sponsorship (public,private, ngo, municipal, etc)Type of facility (out/residential, GP, hospital, psychiatric hosp, prison,

other) No low-tresholdForm of treatment (group, individual, family, network)Range of services offeredCapacity (inp beds) + Census (borken down by substance, treatment

modalities, referral, specific groups) Target groups (broken down by substance: alcohol, illicit, medications +

behavioural addictions and by No of clients)Target groups (minors, immigrants, pregnant women, etc)No cost questionsNo Staffing questions No quality management No PartnershipsNo access questions

1212

Between 60-70 Q

1313

The EFSQ

Section A - Administrative information (5Qs)

Section B - Target population and client information (11Qs)

Section C – Staffing and Quality Management (6Qs)

Section D – Facility Services (7Qs)

1414

Survey among selected FPs – general feedback

Italy: In our opinion, in general this questionnaire is easy and comprehensible, and it could be relevant for the collection of data from the facility centers.

Hungary: We highlighted every question in red as there are no data collection on treatment units currently and it would take some time to set up one. In general we believe that it would be hard to implement such an in-depth data collection with a good coverage in Hungary. A shorter questionnaire would be much feasible

1515

Austria: Some items are a bit tricky as we would have to combine various documentation systems (e.g. TDI, substitution register and facility survey).

 

Netherlands: Is this form for the total institute, or per department/facility of an institute (sometimes more than 20 per institute)? Double counting will be a problem because of the large institutes on one address. Were treatment-units and locations can change quickly or overlap.

Finland: Interesting and relevant questions, but the length....

Greece: We really appreciate the importance of a common tool in the area. think it is very important is to define the term “facility”. In addition, it also very important to specify that for each facility (according to your definition) there should be a separate questionnaire completed. From the Greek experience, we found that it is more practical for facilities to have different questionnaires for different types of services they offer (e.g., low threshold, treatment, social reintegration) than reporting all in one.