National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Results from 22 Traffic Records Assessments

John SieglerNational Driver Register and Traffic Records Division

Office of Traffic Records and Analysis

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 2

Background

System Modules Management Modules Crash 44 TRCC Management 19Driver 45 Strategic Planning 16Vehicle 39 Data Use & Integration 13

Roadway 38Citation & Adjudication 54

Injury Surveillance 123

• In 2012, NHTSA and National Subject matter experts updated the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads.

TR Assessment: Comparing States to the Ideal System

Assessment questions allow assessors to:• Identify strengths and challenge areas• Rank questions to help prioritize investment• Supply brief recommendations for improvement

3

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 4

Scoring

Question Rating Question WeightMeets 3 Very Important 3Partially Meets 2 Somewhat Important 2Does Not Meet 1 Less Important 1

Possible Points = Question Weight X 3 (Meets)Question Score = Actual/Possible Points

The Traffic records assessment is based on OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which requires respondents to provide evidence for each question.

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 5

Assessment Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2240.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

78.5%

49.9%

66.8%

Since 2012, NHTSA has facilitated traffic records assessments in 22 States.

Average Assessment Score is 66.8%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 6

Average Score by System Modules

CRASH 71.9%DRIVER 70.7%ROADWAY 64.1%VEHICLE 63.9%INJURY SURVEILLANCE 63.3%CITATION & ADJUDICATION 62.7%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 7

National Recommendations

Crash Vehicle Driver Roadway Citation/ Adjudication

EMS/Injury Surveillance

Description and Contents 93.3% 80.1% 79.7% 85.2% 73.0% 70.1%

Applicable Guidelines 89.4% 78.4% 87.9% 67.4% 65.9% 79.6%

Data Dictionaries 70.5% 75.1% 74.6% 63.9% 63.9% 75.5%

Procedures/ Process Flow 74.9% 66.7% 80.0% 70.4% 67.7% 75.9%

Interfaces 57.0% 69.1% 82.3% 73.9% 55.2% 39.2%

Data Quality Control Programs 59.4% 52.8% 51.5% 51.5% 50.8% 53.5%

Overall 71.9% 63.9% 70.7% 64.1% 62.7% 63.3%

TRCC Management 86.2%

Strategic Planning 77.1%

Data Use and Integration 61.0%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 8

System Description 80.2%

Applicable Guidelines 78.1%

Procedures & Processes 72.6%

Data Dictionary 70.6%

Interfaces 62.8%

Quality Control 53.2%

System Module Component Scores

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 9

• Describes the purpose and function of each system module, the data that is collected, and system ownership and administration.

Description and Contents

CRASH 93.3% Trauma Registry 78.3%ROADWAY 85.2% Vital Records 76.8%

VEHICLE 80.1% Hospital Discharge 75.8%DRIVER 79.7% EMS 66.7%

CITATION & ADJUDICATION 73.0% Emergency

Department62.6%

INJURY SURVEILLANCE 70.1%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 10

• Use data to identify crash risk factors and prioritize law enforcement

• Responsibility for crash database, vehicle registration, and driver are each located in one place

More than 75% of the

States Assessed

• Include rehabilitation data in the Injury Surveillance System

Less than 25% of the States

Assessed

Description and Contents Strengths and Opportunities

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 11

• Lists the data standards and guidelines that States should use to manage their traffic records systems

Applicable Guidelines

CRASH 89.4% EMS 87.9%DRIVER 87.9% TRAUMA REGISTERY 84.0%

INJURY SURVEILLANCE 79.6% EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 80.3%

VEHICLE 78.4% HOSPITAL DISCHARGE 45.5%

ROADWAY 67.4%CITATION/

ADJUDICATION 65.9%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 12

• Use MMUCC to identify crash data elements and attributes to collect

• Has data on vehicle records recommended by AAMVA and/or received through NMVTIS

• Data interacts with the national driver registers PDPS and CDLIS

• Are NEMSIS-compliant

More than 75% of the

States Assessed

• Do not derive AIS and ISS scores from the State emergency department and hospital discharge data for motor vehicle crash patients

Less than 25% of the States

Assessed

Applicable GuidelinesStrengths and Opportunities

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 13

• Describes the recommended content and use for each component system’s data dictionary.

Data Dictionary

INJURY SURVEILLANCE 75.5% EMS 83.3%VEHICLE 75.1% TRAUMA REGISTERY 80.3%DRIVER 74.6% HOSPITAL DISCHARGE 76.5%

CRASH 70.5% EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 69.7%

ROADWAY 63.9% VITAL RECORDS 67.4%CITATION/ ADJUDICATION 63.9%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 14

• Have data dictionaries for EMS, hospital discharge, and trauma registry systems.

More than 75% of the

States assessed

• Data dictionary does not indicate the data elements populated through links to other traffic records system components

Less than 25% of the States

assessed

Data DictionaryStrengths and Opportunities

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 15

• Describes the ideal procedures for the collection and management of data for each system module

Procedures and Process Flows

DRIVER 80.0% EMS 85.3%INJURY SURVEILLANCE 75.9% HOSPITAL DISCHARGE 76.5%

CRASH 74.9% VITAL RECORDS 75.8%ROADWAY 70.4% TRAUMA REGISTERY 75.4%CITATION/

ADJUDICATION 67.7% EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 67.9%

VEHICLE 66.7%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 16

• Have established procedures for identifying driver license fraud

• A single entity collects and compiles data from local EMS, hospital discharge

• Have diagrams for EMS key data flow processes

• Have separate procedures for paper and electronic filing of EMS patient care reports

• Allow outside parties to access aggregate hospital discharge data and vital records data for analytic purposes

More than

75% of the

States Assessed

Procedures and Process FlowStrengths and Opportunities

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 17

• Describes the ideal real time relationships between data sets, which need to be connected and accessible at all times

• Identifies ideal interfaces between each data system

Interface with Other Systems

DRIVER 82.3%ROADWAY 73.9%VEHICLE 69.1%CRASH 57.0%CITATION/ ADJUDICATION 55.2%INJURY SURVEILLANCE 39.2%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 18

•Retrieve vehicle records using VIN, title number and license plate numbers.•Driver information is accessed by authorized law enforcement and court personnel

More than 75% of the States

Assessed

• Share data between• Crash and citation and Adjudication• Crash and injury surveillance• EMS and (1)Emergency department, (2)

hospital discharge, and (3) trauma registry

• Vital statistics and hospital discharge

Less than 25% of the States

assessed

Interface with Other SystemsStrengths and Opportunities

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 19

• Describes the ideal practices and components for a comprehensive data quality management foe each component system.

Data Quality Control

CRASH 59.4% TRAUMA REGISTERY 58.5%INJURY SURVEILLANCE 53.5% EMS 52.7%

VEHICLE 52.8% VITAL RECORDS 51.4%

ROADWAY 51.5% EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 51.3%

DRIVER 51.5% HOSPITAL DISCHARGE 51.3%CITATION/

ADJUDICATION 50.8%

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 20

• Automate edit checks and validation rules for crash data

• Authorize staff to amend obvious errors and omissions for the crash and driver databases .

More than

75% of the

States Assessed

Data Quality Strengths

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 21

• Conduct independent sample-based audits of crash reports and related database content.

• Produce data quality reports for their vehicle and driver databases.

Less than 25% of

the States

Assessed

Crash: Data Quality Opportunities

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 22

Timeliness Accuracy Completeness Uniformity Integration Accessibility

Crash X XVehicle X X X X X XDriver XRoadway X X X XCitation & Adjudication X X

Less than 25% of the 22 States Assessed had Performance Measures in the following areas

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 23

Timeliness Accuracy Completeness Uniformity Integration Accessibility

EMS X X XEmergency Room X X XTrauma Registry X X XHospital Discharge X X XVital Records X X X X

Less than 25% of the 22 States Assessed had Performance Measures in the following areas

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 24

Level of Effort for Assessments

19 Respondents

179 Hours

States12 Assessors

270 Hours

NHTSA

There is a significant positive relationship between the assessment score and the average time responding in STRAP, r(19) =0.593, p< .05

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads. 25

Changes to Assessment Process

• Revised Procedures Manual

• Enhancement to STRAP– Respondent Interface– Assessor Interface

• One -Page Summary Reports

Safer drivers. Safer cars. Safer roads.

Questions?

John Siegler, Ph.D.

John.Siegler@dot.gov

www.NHTSA.gov