Skip to main content
Log in

Completeness and accuracy of the drug treatment reporting system in Dublin, Ireland

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The National Drug Treatment Reporting System (NDTRS) is the Irish treated-drug misuse surveillance system.

Aim

To measure completeness and accuracy of the NDTRS

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of clinical records and matching NDTRS reporting forms of a random sample of 520 clients attending 4 Dublin treatment centres. Using clients’ clinical records as the gold standard, system completeness (proportion of sample reported to the NDTRS) and accuracy of selected variables (proportion of reported clients’ information on the NDTRS that matched clinical record information) were measured.

Results

452/520 (87%) selected records were retrieved. The NDTRS was only 61.1% (95% Cl 56.5–65.5) complete; completeness differed across treatment centres (21.8%–85.6%, p< 0.0001) and was greater for new and returning clients than for continuing clients (81.7% versus 53.9% respectively, p< 0.0001). Problems were identified with the accuracy of some key variables.

Conclusions

Urgent actions have been taken to improve the completeness and accuracy of the reporting system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rychetnik L, Hawe P, Waters E, Barrat A, Frommer M. A glossary for evidence based public health.J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58:538–545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heller RF, Page J. A population perspective to evidence based medicine: “evidence for population health”.J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56:45–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Leet TL, Gillespie KN. Evidencebased public health. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Government of Ireland: Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. Building on experience: national drug strategy 2001–2008. Dublin: The Stationary Office, 2001.

  5. Kraus L, Augustin R, Frischer M, Kummler P, Uhl A, Weissing L. Estimating the prevalence of problem drug use at a national level in countries of the European Union and Norway.Addiction 2003; 98:471–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hartnoll R. Drug treatment reporting systems and the first Treatment Demand Indicator. Definitive Protocol. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. EMCDDA Scientific Report: Treatment demand indicator standard protocol 2.0. Lisbon: EMCDDA, 2000.

  8. Drug Misuse Research Division HRB. Occasional Paper No. 8/2002: trends in treated drug misuse in the Eastern Health Board area 1996–1999. Dublin: Health Research Board, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The Council of the European Union. EU Drugs Strategy, 2005–2012 — Cordrogue 77. Brussles: General Secretariat, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sutton M, Maynard M. Are drug policies based on fake statistics?Addiction 1993; 88:455–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Crabbe T, Donmall M, Millar T. Validation of the University of Manchester Drug Misuse Database.J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53:159–164.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Frischer M, Norwood J, Heatlie H,et al A comparison of trends in problematic drug misuse from two reporting systems.J Public Health Med 2000; 22:362–367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hickman M, Sutcliffe H, Sondhi A, Stimson G. Validation of a regional drug misuse; implications for policy and surveillance of problem drug use in the UK.Br Med J 1997; 315–581.

  14. Hickman M, Sutcliffe H, Sondhi A, Stimson G. Surveillance of problem drug use in the UK; a review of a regional drug misusedatabase. J Public Health Med 1999; 21(271–277).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mott J, Caddie D, Donmall M. A comparison of doctors’ practice in notifying addicts to the Home Office and reporting them to the North Western Dug Misuse Database.Addiction 1993; 88:249–256.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilkinson S, Soteriou T, Gray S, Orme J, Myles J. Artefact or reality? Increases in persons notified to the Regional Drug Misuse Database in the South West of England, 1996–2001.J Public Health 2004; 26:3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the guidelines working group.MMWR Recomm Rep 2001; 50 (no. RR-13):1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  18. JMP [program]. Version 4.0.4. version: SAS Institute Incorporated, 1989–2001.

  19. STATA [program]. Version 7 version: STATA Corporation, 1984–2001.

  20. Department of Health. Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug users in treatment in England, 2000/01. London: Department of Health, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Kavanagh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kavanagh, P., Long, J. & Barry, J. Completeness and accuracy of the drug treatment reporting system in Dublin, Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 175, 52–56 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03169173

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03169173

Keywords

Navigation