Table 3 Participants’ responses regarding the importance of the functions of the ISIS − 1st round of the Delphi study
From: Emergency department-based injury surveillance information system: a conceptual model
NO | Functions of the ISIS | Very important Fr (%) | Important Fr (%) | Moderately important Fr (%) | Slightly important Fr (%) | Not important Fr (%) | Mean + SD | Median (Q1-Q3) | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
76 | Automated data encoding | 30 (50.0) | 23 (38.3) | 7 (11.7) | 0 | 0 | 4.38 + 0.69 | 4.5 (4-5) | ✓ |
77 | Quality control during data collection | 29 (48.3) | 23 (38.3) | 6 (10.0) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.32 + 0.79 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
78 | Quality control during data integration | 29 (48.3) | 22 (36.7) | 7 (11.7) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.30 + 0.81 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
79 | Searching required data | 34 (56.7) | 23 (38.3) | 1 (1.7) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.48 + 0.70 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
80 | Backing up data | 33 (55.0) | 23 (38.3) | 2 (3.3) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.45 + 0.72 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
81 | Free text data entry | 27 (45.0) | 21 (35.0) | 5 (8.3) | 4 (6.7) | 3 (5.0) | 4.08 + 1.12 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
82 | Connection to the trauma registry | 30 (50.0) | 24 (40.0) | 4 (6.7) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.37 + 0.76 | 4.5 (4-5) | ✓ |
83 | Connection to other databases such as Police, Fire Department, Red Crescent | 16 (26.7) | 24 (40.0) | 16 (26.7) | 4 (6.7) | 0 | 3.87 + 0.89 | 4 (3-5) | × |
84 | Sharing data with other organizations | 16 (26.7) | 25 (41.7) | 15 (25.0) | 4 (6.7) | 0 | 3.77 + 0.88 | 4 (3-5) | × |
85 | Using Clinical Decision Support Systems | 20 (33.3) | 20 (33.3) | 15 (25.0) | 5 (8.3) | 0 | 3.92 + 0.96 | 4 (3-5) | × |
86 | Making data available to multiple users simultaneously | 19 (31.7) | 22 (36.7) | 11 (18.3) | 8 (13.3) | 0 | 3.87 + 1.02 | 4 (3-5) | × |
87 | Access to the data Dashboard | 27 (45.0) | 21 (35.0) | 9 (15.0) | 3 (5.0) | 0 | 4.20 + 0.88 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
88 | Hazard tracking and alerting | 31 (51.7) | 20 (33.3) | 6 (10.0) | 3 (5.0) | 0 | 4.32 + 0.85 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
89 | Data exchange based on the standards | 31 (51.7) | 17 (28.3) | 6 (10.0) | 6 (10.0) | 0 | 4.22 + 0.99 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
90 | Tracing injury referrals | 30 (50.0) | 18 (30.0) | 8 (13.3) | 4 (6.7) | 0 | 4.23 + 093 | 4.5 (4-5) | ✓ |
91 | Using Geographic Information System | 24 (40.0) | 15 (25.0) | 11 (18.3) | 10 (16.7) | 0 | 3.88 + 1.12 | 4 (3-5) | × |
92 | Using Global Positioning System | 23 (38.3) | 11 (18.3) | 18 (30.0) | 8 (13.3) | 0 | 3.82 + 1.10 | 4 (3-5) | × |
93 | Generating various statistical charts and graphs | 23 (38.3) | 10 (16.7) | 14 (23.3) | 13 (21.7) | 0 | 3.72 + 1.19 | 4 (3-5) | × |
94 | Defining new formats for reports | 20 (33.3) | 25 (41.7) | 10 (16.7) | 5 (8.3) | 0 | 4.00 + 0.92 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
95 | Reporting | 26 (43.3) | 20 (33.3) | 6 (10.0) | 8 (13.3) | 0 | 4.07 + 1.04 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
96 | Storing data in a regional database | 27 (45.0) | 23 (38.3) | 10 (16.7) | 0 | 0 | 4.28 + 0.74 | 4 (4-5) | ✓ |
97 | Storing data in the national database | 30 (50.0) | 19 (31.7) | 11 (18.3) | 0 | 0 | 4.23 + 0.77 | 4.5 (4-5) | ✓ |
98 | Synchronous data analysis | 35 (58.3) | 18 (30.0) | 5 (8.3) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.43 + 0.79 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
99 | Medical trends analysis | 33 (55.0) | 18 (30.0) | 7 (11.7) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.37 + 0.82 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
100 | Analyzing injury consequences | 35 (58.3) | 18 (30.0) | 5 (8.3) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.43 + 0.79 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
101 | Analyzing injury mortality | 32 (53.3) | 22 (36.7) | 3 (5.0) | 3 (5.0) | 0 | 4.38 + 0.80 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
102 | Analyzing the degree of disability caused by injuries | 32 (53.3) | 20 (33.3) | 7 (11.7) | 1 (1.7) | 0 | 4.38 + 0.76 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
103 | Providing secure access to online data | 32 (53.3) | 16 (26.7) | 8 (13.3) | 4 (6.7) | 0 | 4.27 + 0.94 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |
104 | Using a digital signature | 27 (45.0) | 12 (20.0) | 11 (18.3) | 10 (16.7) | 0 | 3.93 + 1.15 | 4 (3-5) | × |
105 | System maintenance and updates | 40 (66.7) | 13 (21.7) | 5 (8.3) | 2 (3.3) | 0 | 4.52 + 0.79 | 5 (4-5) | ✓ |