BACKGROUND: The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) collects timely, integrated, and comprehensive information on violent deaths using data from multiple sources. Data sources include death certificates, coroner/medical examiner records, law enforcement reports, and data abstractor input. It also disseminates the findings to stakeholders who work on violence prevention efforts. The goal is to implement NVDRS in all states and territories to provide a complete, comprehensive picture of violent deaths in the U.S. Minnesota began abstracting data into the Minnesota Violent Death Reporting System (MNVDRS) in 2015.
METHODS: The evaluation of the MNVDRS utilized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems. The evaluation encompasses a range of topics that aim to understand how the surveillance system functions in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating the data, as well as engagement with stakeholders and data providers. The importance of the health-related event under surveillance is described through a review of the literature. Additionally, there are ten attributes that direct the evaluation. However, only the most pertinent for understanding and improving the surveillance system are highlighted.
RESULTS: The usefulness of the MNVDRS is through a better understanding of the circumstances that put an individual at increased risk for a violent death, as well as informing the policies and programs that address violent deaths; before even a full year of data became available, MNVDRS had been utilized several times to inform prevention policy. The MNVDRS is not a simple surveillance system because of its reliance on many data providers and the large amount of data collected. Data quality needs to be improved; improvement should occur as abstraction of law enforcement data increases, and through a better understanding of the death investigation process. Representativeness and timeliness of the data also need improvement. Finally, acceptability from data providers and the advisory council is already good, and should improve by sharing reports that demonstrate the benefit of the MNVDRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the first year of data collection for the MNVDRS progressed smoothly, the evaluation identified several areas of weakness. While the MNVDRS was positive in acceptability, where the surveillance system is performing notably well is in its usefulness during its startup. There are three notable examples of how the MNVDRS was used to inform prevention policy, even before the first year of data was fully abstracted and completed. This demonstration of usefulness highlights the great utility and potential of MNVDRS for public health.