Aishling Sheridan, Research Officer.

1. Existing Local Health Data Systems:
a summary of the pre-event survey of
participants
Aishling Sheridan
Research Officer (HSE)
Dr Marie Casey
Specialist in Public Health Medicine

2. Overview
• Background to scoping exercise
• Where this fits in the bigger picture- our
collaboration
• Preliminary results from proforma

3. Background to Scoping Process
• During our own work on area profiles a number of issues
arose
• What we are asked for at local DPH level isn’t readily available
• Increased demand for profiles and easy to access information in different
formats
• Duplication and gaps
– Growth in numbers and types of profiles, both within the HSE and outside
• Sustainability of our process
• Technical challenges
– Process of getting data was difficult
– Not aware of all of the datasets
• Difficulties in eliciting feedback from users
• Recognition of added value from a more collaborative approach
• Engagement with IPH and DH on HI seemed a natural starting
point for exploring the potential of greater collaboration in
this area to the benefit of all involved.

4. Our collaboration
• Discussions lead to us thinking about what a
process for this might look like:
– Scoping exercise and stakeholder event (today)
– Report and action plan from this group (presented at
Knowledge 4 Health Conference)
– Our aim is to move forward as a group to develop a
mechanism of constructive collaboration (using your
feedback today and buy in) which would strengthen
our health information function in Ireland and which
would support our national public health strategy

5. Results of the pre-event Survey

6. Respondents
• 14 submissions received
• Central Statistics Office
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Health Protection Surveillance Centre
• Health Research Board
• Health Service Executive
• Institute of Public Health in Ireland
• National Cancer Registry of Ireland
• National Screening Service
• National Suicide Research Foundation
• Pobal
• The Health & Positive Ageing Initiative jointly supported by The Atlantic
Philanthropies, the Department of Health, the HSE and Age Friendly
Ireland.
• (1 late not included today but will be in later report)

7. Reports/Profiles by Organisation
• Central Statistics Office
– Irish Health Survey (EU)
• Environmental Protection Agency
– Ambient air quality monitoring data for pollutants
– Environmental performance of EPA licensed industrial
and waste activities
– Drinking water quality reports
– Radiation levels in monitoring stations
– Radiation levels in fish & shellfish
– Radiation levels in foodstuffs
– Radiation levels in water, seaweed & sediment
– Radon gas levels in homes
– Radon gas levels in schools & creches
– Radon gas levels in social housing
– Urban waste water discharges and impacts on
receiving waters
• Health Protection Surveillance Centre
– HIV annual report
– Immunisation uptake statistics
– Staph aureus MRSA quarterly and annual report
– TB annual & quarterly reports
– Weekly Infectious disease report
• Health Research Board
• Health Service Executive
– Area profiles
– Child health profiles
– Health Atlas Ireland – Finder
– Atlas Finder
• Institute of Public Health in Ireland
– IPH Data Visualiser Tool
– IPH Community Profiles Tool
– Dept of Health PHIS data
– Chronic Conditions Prevalence Tool
• National Cancer Registry of Ireland
– Cancer Incidence
• National Screening Service
– Service area uptake reports
– County level coverage data
• National Suicide Research Foundation
– Annual Report of the National Self-harm Registry of Ireland
– Injury Database
• Pobal
– Social Inclusion Community Activation Clients
– Community Service Programmes, TUS, Gateway, and Rural
Social Scheme
– Early childhood Care & Education (free preschool)
• The Health & Positive Ageing Initiative (jointly supported by
The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Department of Health, the HSE and Age
Friendly Ireland)
– Positive Ageing in Ireland series of county reports

8. Main Uses of the Report/Profiles
• Information received on 38 profiles
Main use of profiles Number (%)
of profiles
Map & identify risks 7, (18%)
Provide health related data – county level 6, (16%)
Surveillance data 5, (13%)
Public information 4, (10%)
Service planning 3, (8%)
Provide health related data – national level 2, (5%)
Administration 2, (5%)
Uptake of screening programmes 2, (5%)
Prevalence of chronic diseases – Ireland 1, (3%)
Progress report 1, (3%)
Provide health related data – regional level 1, (3%)
Not documented 4, (10%)

9. Was this report commissioned?
• Was the area profile commissioned by another organisation?
• Yes, 12 (32%)
• No, 21 (55%)
• Not known, 5 (13%)
• By who??
– Department of Health n= 4
– Department of Environment, Community & Local Government n=3
– Department of Children & Youth Affairs n=1
– Department of Education & Skills n=1
– Department of Social Protection n=1
– Health Service Executive n=1
– Not known n=1

10. Collaboration
• Were there collaborating partners?
• Yes, 20 (53%)
• No, 3 (8%)
• Not known, 15 (39%)
• How many??
35%
20%
30%
0
10%
5%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
One Two Three Four Five Six
Number of collaborating partners per profile

11. Geographical Units of Profiles
National (4)
Regional (1)
HSE Area (2)
County/City (7)
Local Authority (2)
Local Health Office
(2)Small Area (3)
Service Area (1)
Site-specific (7)
Hospital (2)
Electoral Division (2)
School (1)
Not documented (4)

12. Challenges in Developing Profiles
• 10/14 (71%) organisations reported experiencing challenge(s) in developing some
of their profiles.
• Main challenges reported were:
1. Gathering and keeping the data up to date
 Resources to manage networks, training and support needs, ensuring data accuracy/integrity, large
areas, ongoing changes to be incorporated.
2. Costs associated with providing data
 Lack of funding and resources, large number of sites, ensuring compliance with standards e.g. EU
3. Getting data at the appropriate level on different topics eg on wider determinants of health
 Different administrative boundaries e.g. health (Community Health Organisations, Hospital Groups,
Primary Care Teams etc)
4. Geo-coding of addresses
5. No national agreed standard
 Collating comparable data across multiple platforms, no agreement on common indicators, or
standard health profile
6. Access to data
 Lack of unique identifier, data coverage issues

13. Datasets in Survey
• Information provided on 61 ‘unique’ datasets from 33 source
organisations.
• Of the 38 profiles featured:
 79% used datasets from their
own organisation only
 13% used datasets from
other organisations
 8% used a combination of
their own datasets and other datasets in their profile
Self
Other
Self &
Other
Source of Datasets in Profiles

14. Datasets per Profile
82%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
One Two Three Four Five Five +
Numberofprofiles
Number of datasets

15. General characteristics of the datasets:
1. Frequency updated
Frequency of updating of dataset Number Percentage
Continuously 1 1.3%
Weekly 7 8.8%
Monthly 2 2.5%
6-monthly 1 1.3%
Quarterly 13 16.3%
Annually 24 30.0%
2 yearly 1 1.3%
4 yearly 1 1.3%
5 yearly 7 8.8%
Other 19 23.8%
Blank 4 5.0%
Total 80 100.0%

16. General characteristics of the datasets:
2. Method of access
Other
Excel
tables
Download
able
Electronic
file
transfer
Manually pdf
Percentage 31.3% 26.3% 20.0% 11.3% 1.3% 10.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Percentage
Method of accessing dataset from source organisation

17. General characteristics of the datasets:
3. Aggregate or Individual level data
Data acquired at individual level was more likely to require manipulation by the user
Aggregate
level
44%
Individual
level
36%
Blank
20%
Level of data in dataset used

18. General characteristics of the datasets:
4. Coverage of datasets
Coverageofdataset Number Percentage
National 29 36.3%
Regional 15 18.8%
Local 21 26.3%
Blank 15 18.8%
Total 80 100.0%

19. Variables available in datasets
Variable Yes No
DOB (N= 64) 28% 72%
Age Group (N= 65) 69% 31%
Gender (N= 65) 55% 45%
Social Class (N= 61) 28% 72%
Deprivation (N= 60) 23% 77%
Ethnicity (N= 62) 19% 81%

20. Geographical level of Datasets
• County, 25 (39%)
• Small Area, 24 (38%)
• Local Health Office, 8 (12.5%)
• Electoral division, 3 (5%)
• Other 4 includes HSE Area, Regional Authority,
National

21. Target Audiences
• Approximately 12 different target groups listed
• All have one target audience, 85% have at least two
and 64% at least three
• Some commonalities
– HSE (57%)
– Dept of Health (50%)
– Research/academia (36%)
– Public (36%)
– Local Authorities (29%)

22. End User Feedback
• Most (64%) respondents elicit feed back from end
users
• Variety of mechanisms used, some multiple methods
– 29% use survey and 75% of these also use workshops and
50% had user groups
• Other methods used include comment forms,
training sessions and email address

23. Publication format
• All respondents publish in some format
• Report most common (93%)
• Static tables or maps used by 71%
• Charts 64%
• Interactive maps or tables (43%)
• Other formats include pdf or excel documents,
interactive charts, guidance leaflets, websites,
infographics

24. In Summary
• Variations evident:
• main uses/ target audiences/geographical units/mechanism
of accessing underlying data/ level of underlying
data/publication of profiles
• Function of what is required or function of what is possible?
• Similar challenges across organisations
• Evidence of working on our own: Reports with
one dataset and some collaboration.