1. European facility survey questionnaire (EFSQ) Treatment CUP

2. 22 We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

3. 33 Background, rationale and purpose of the EFSQ Increase our knowledge about the characteristics, treatment service options and quality assurance mechanisms (EMCDDA Treatment Strategy, 2012).

4. 44

5. 55

6. 66

7. 77 Expert meeting (19 September 2012): 'Basic domains and variables in the surveys seemed to overlap, although it was acknowledged that objectives to conduct facility surveys varied between countries. A common dataset was considered useful to improve comparability within and between countries.'

8. 88 The EFSQ: Process National surveys from France, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden and international surveys like the TUF, SAMSHA and the correlation 'data collection protocol for specialist harm reduction agencies' were analysed. Aim: produce a short, core set of questions common to existing national questionnaires

9. 99 Deutscher Kerndatensatz zur Dokumentation im Bereich der Suchtkrankenhilfe Relevant sections: Contact details Ownership/Sponsorship (public/private, etc) Type of facility (out/inp, lta,etc) Capacity/Census Access Target group Interventions (no questions available) Cost/Payment Staffing (number per profession and qualification?) Quality management ?? What?? Partnerships

10. 10 Greek treatment facility survey Contact details (name, address, postcode) Ownership/Sponsorship (public,private,ngo, etc) Type of facility (out/inp,prison, other, etc) Census (no capacity question for inp) No access questions re. opening hours (but for specific client groups) Target groups Interventions No cost questions Staffing (number full/part time/volunteers; qualification) Quality management (training, Partnerships

11. 11 Swedish treatment facility survey Contact details (name, address, postcode) Ownership/Sponsorship (public,private, ngo, municipal, etc) Type of facility (out/residential, GP, hospital, psychiatric hosp, prison, other) No low-treshold Form of treatment (group, individual, family, network) Range of services offered Capacity (inp beds) + Census (borken down by substance, treatment modalities, referral, specific groups) Target groups (broken down by substance: alcohol, illicit, medications + behavioural addictions and by No of clients) Target groups (minors, immigrants, pregnant women, etc) No cost questions No Staffing questions No quality management No Partnerships No access questions

12. 12 Between 60-70 Q

13. 13 The EFSQ Section A - Administrative information (5Qs) Section B - Target population and client information (11Qs) Section C – Staffing and Quality Management (6Qs) Section D – Facility Services (7Qs)

14. 14 Survey among selected FPs – general feedback Italy: In our opinion, in general this questionnaire is easy and comprehensible, and it could be relevant for the collection of data from the facility centers. Hungary: We highlighted every question in red as there are no data collection on treatment units currently and it would take some time to set up one. In general we believe that it would be hard to implement such an in-depth data collection with a good coverage in Hungary. A shorter questionnaire would be much feasible

15. 15 Austria: Some items are a bit tricky as we would have to combine various documentation systems (e.g. TDI, substitution register and facility survey). Netherlands: Is this form for the total institute, or per department/facility of an institute (sometimes more than 20 per institute)? Double counting will be a problem because of the large institutes on one address. Were treatment-units and locations can change quickly or overlap. Finland: Interesting and relevant questions, but the length.... Greece: We really appreciate the importance of a common tool in the area. think it is very important is to define the term facility. In addition, it also very important to specify that for each facility (according to your definition) there should be a separate questionnaire completed. From the Greek experience, we found that it is more practical for facilities to have different questionnaires for different types of services they offer (e.g., low threshold, treatment, social reintegration) than reporting all in one.