HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Shipton, D Articles by Stone, D H PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shipton, D Articles by Stone, D H

The Yorkhill CHIRPP story: a qualitative evaluation of 10 years of injury surveillance at a Scottish children’s hospital

¹ Paediatric Epidemiology and Community Health (PEACH) Unit, Department of Child Health, Division of Developmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Professor D Stone, PEACH Unit, Yorkhill Hospital, Glasgow G3 8SJ, UK; D.h.stone{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk

Background: The Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) is an emergency department-based injury surveillance system that was devised in Canada and has been in operation since 1990. CHIRPP was imported to Glasgow’s Royal Hospital for Sick Children at Yorkhill in 1996 and ran for 10 years.

Objective: To critically review CHIRPP at Yorkhill (Y-CHIRPP). The following two key questions were posed. (1) Did Y-CHIRPP fail, and, if so, why? (2) What generalisable lessons can be learned about injury surveillance?

Methods: A retrospective qualitative review of Y-CHIRPP was carried out. In gathering information, the aims were to: (a) describe the processes involved in running Y-CHIRPP; (b) identify changes made to that process over the 10 years; (c) determine the strengths and weaknesses of Y-CHIRPP.

Results: Taken together, and with reference to the WHO attributes of a good surveillance system, the findings suggest that Y-CHIRPP largely met the criteria of simplicity, flexibility, and acceptability. Criteria that were not, or only intermittently, met were reliability, utility, sustainability, and timeliness.

Conclusions: Y-CHIRPP was, at best, a partial success. To maintain the viability of an injury surveillance system and to secure the long-term support of hospital staff, it is important that the system is perceived as an injury prevention service tool and not a research method. Experience with Y-CHIRPP suggests that injury surveillance requires three supporting posts: an emergency department staff member, a data analyst, and someone with responsibility for developing and/or lobbying for the implementation of preventive measures.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. D Johnston Telling stories Inj. Prev., October 1, 2008; 14(5): 281 - 282. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Pless Surveillance alone is not the answer Inj. Prev., August 1, 2008; 14(4): 220 - 222. [Full Text] [PDF]