The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID) are a set of hospital databases that contain the universe of hospital inpatient discharge abstracts from data organizations in participating States. The data are translated into a uniform format to facilitate multi-State comparisons and analyses. The SID are based on data from short term, acute care, nonfederal hospitals. Some States include discharges from specialty facilities, such as acute psychiatric hospitals. The SID include all patients, regardless of payer and contain clinical and resource use information included in a typical discharge abstract, with safeguards to protect the privacy of individual patients, physicians, and hospitals (as required by data sources). Developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HCUP data inform decision making at the national, State, and community levels.

The SID contain clinical and resource-use information that is included in a typical discharge abstract, with safeguards to protect the privacy of individual patients, physicians, and hospitals (as required by data sources). Data elements include but are not limited to: diagnoses, procedures, admission and discharge status, patient demographics (e.g., sex, age), total charges, length of stay, and expected payment source, including but not limited to Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay, or those billed as ‘no charge’. In addition to the core set of uniform data elements common to all SID, some include State-specific data elements. The SID exclude data elements that could directly or indirectly identify individuals. For some States, hospital and county identifiers are included that permit linkage to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey File and county-level data from the Bureau of Health Professions' Area Resource File except in States that do not allow the release of hospital identifiers.

Restricted access data files are available with a data use agreement and brief online security training.

Abstract

The State Ambulatory Surgery Databases (SASD), State Inpatient Databases (SID), and State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) are part of a family of databases and software tools developed for the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP).

HCUP's state-specific databases can be used to investigate state-specific and multi-state trends in health care utilization, access, charges, quality, and outcomes. PHS has several years (2008-2011) and datasets (SASSD, SED and SIDD) for HCUP California available.

Usage

The State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) are State-specific files that include data for ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services from hospital-owned facilities. In addition, some States provide ambulatory surgery and outpatient services from nonhospital-owned facilities. The uniform format of the SASD helps facilitate cross-State comparisons. The SASD are well suited for research that requires complete enumeration of hospital-based ambulatory surgeries within geographic areas or States.

The State Inpatient Databases (SID) are State-specific files that contain all inpatient care records in participating states. Together, the SID encompass more than 95 percent of all U.S. hospital discharges. The uniform format of the SID helps facilitate cross-state comparisons. In addition, the SID are well suited for research that requires complete enumeration of hospitals and discharges within geographic areas or states.

The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) are a set of longitudinal State-specific emergency department (ED) databases included in the HCUP family. The SEDD capture discharge information on all emergency department visits that do not result in an admission. Information on patients seen in the emergency room and then admitted to the hospital is included in the State Inpatient Databases (SID)

SASD, SID, and SEDD each have **Documentation **which includes:

• Description of the Database
• Restrictions on Use
• File Specifications and Load Program
• Data Elements
• Additional Resources for Data Elements
• ICD-10-CM/PCS Data Included in the Dataset Starting with 2015
• Known Data Issues
• HCUP Tools: Labels and Formats
• HCUP Supplemental Files
• Obtaining HCUP Data

%3C!-- --%3E

Before Manuscript Submission

All manuscripts (and other items you'd like to publish) must be submitted to

phsdatacore@stanford.edu for approval prior to journal submission.

We will check your cell sizes and citations.

For more information about how to cite PHS and PHS datasets, please visit:

https:/phsdocs.developerhub.io/need-help/citing-phs-data-core

Documentation

The HCUP California inpatient files were constructed from the confidential files received from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). OSHPD excluded inpatient stays that, after processing by OSHPD, did not contain a complete and “in-range” admission date or discharge date. California also excluded inpatient stays that had an unknown or missing date of birth. OSHPD removes ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM diagnoses codes for HIV test results. Beginning with 2009 data, OSHPD changed regulations to require hospitals to report all external cause of injury diagnosis codes including those specific to medical misadventures. Prior to 2009, OSHPD did not require collection of diagnosis codes identifying medical misadventures.

**Types of Facilities Included in the Files Provided to HCUP by the Partner **

California supplied discharge data for inpatient stays in general acute care hospitals, acute psychiatric hospitals, chemical dependency recovery hospitals, psychiatric health facilities, and state operated hospitals. A comparison of the number of hospitals included in the SID and the number of hospitals reported in the AHA Annual Survey is available starting in data year 2010. Hospitals do not always report data for a full calendar year. Some hospitals open or close during the year; other hospitals have technical problems that prevent them from reporting data for all months in a year.

**Inclusion of Stays in Special Units **

Included with the general acute care stays are stays in skilled nursing, intermediate care, rehabilitation, alcohol/chemical dependency treatment, and psychiatric units of hospitals in California. How the stays in these different types of units can be identified differs by data year. Beginning in 2006, the information is retained in the HCUP variable HOSPITALUNIT. Reliability of this indicator for the level of care depends on how it was assigned by the hospital. For data years 1998-2006, the information was retained in the HCUP variable LEVELCARE. Prior to 1998, the first

The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain the universe of emergency department visits in participating States. The data are translated into a uniform format to facilitate multi-State comparisons and analyses. The SEDD consist of data from hospital-based emergency departments and include all patients, regardless of payer, e.g., persons covered by Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and the uninsured. The SEDD contain clinical and resource use information included in a typical discharge abstract, with safeguards to protect the privacy of individual patients, physicians, and facilities (as required by data sources). Data elements include but are not limited to: diagnoses, procedures, admission and discharge status, patient demographics (e.g., gender, age), total charges, length of stay, and expected payment source (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay; for some States, additional discrete payer categories, such as managed care). In addition to the core set of uniform data elements common to all SEDD, some include State-specific data elements, such as the patient's race. The SEDD exclude data elements that could directly or indirectly identify individuals. For some States, hospital and county identifiers are included that permit linkage to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey File and the Area Resource File.

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain the universe of emergency department visits in participating States. The data are translated into a uniform format to facilitate multi-State comparisons and analyses. The SEDD consist of data from hospital-based emergency department visits that do not result in an admission. The SEDD include all patients, regardless of the expected payer including but not limited to Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay, or those billed as ‘no charge’. Developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HCUP data inform decision making at the national, State, and community levels.

The SEDD contain clinical and resource use information included in a typical discharge abstract, with safeguards to protect the privacy of individual patients, physicians, and facilities (as required by data sources). Data elements include but are not limited to: diagnoses, procedures, admission and discharge status, patient demographics (e.g., sex, age, race), total charges, length of stay, and expected payment source, including but not limited to Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay, or those billed as ‘no charge’. In addition to the core set of uniform data elements common to all SEDD, some include State-specific data elements. The SEDD exclude data elements that could directly or indirectly identify individuals. For some States, hospital and county identifiers are included that permit linkage to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey File and the Bureau of Health Professions' Area Resource File except in States that do not allow the release of hospital identifiers.

Restricted access data files are available with a data use agreement and brief online security training.

The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain the universe of emergency department visits in participating States. Restricted access data files are available with a data use agreement and brief online security training.

The data are translated into a uniform format to facilitate multi-State comparisons and analyses. The SEDD consist of data from hospital-based emergency departments and include all patients, regardless of payer, e.g., persons covered by Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and the uninsured.

The SEDD contain clinical and resource use information included in a typical discharge abstract, with safeguards to protect the privacy of individual patients, physicians, and facilities (as required by data sources). Data elements include but are not limited to: diagnoses, procedures, admission and discharge status, patient demographics (e.g., gender, age), total charges, length of stay, and expected payment source (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay; for some States, additional discrete payer categories, such as managed care). In addition to the core set of uniform data elements common to all SEDD, some include State-specific data elements, such as the patient's race. The SEDD exclude data elements that could directly or indirectly identify individuals. For some States, hospital and county identifiers are included that permit linkage to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey File and the Area Resource File.

Summary Trend TablesThe HCUP Summary Trend Tables include information on hospital utilization derived from the HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID), State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD), National Inpatient Sample (NIS), and Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). State statistics are displayed by discharge month and national and regional statistics are displayed by discharge quarter. Information on emergency department (ED) utilization is dependent on availability of HCUP data; not all HCUP Partners participate in the SEDD.The HCUP Summary Trend Tables include downloadable Microsoft® Excel tables with information on the following topics:Overview of trends in inpatient and emergency department utilizationAll inpatient encounter typesInpatient encounter typeNormal newbornsDeliveriesNon-elective inpatient stays, admitted through the EDNon-elective inpatient stays, not admitted through the EDElective inpatient staysInpatient service lineMaternal and neonatal conditionsMental health and substance use disordersInjuriesSurgeriesOther medical conditionsED treat-and-release visitsDescription of the data source, methodology, and clinical criteria (Excel file, 43 KB)Change log (Excel file, 65 KB)For each type of inpatient stay, there is an Excel file for the number of discharges, the percent of discharges, the average length of stay, the in-hospital mortality rate per 100 discharges,1 and the population-based rate per 100,000 population.2 Each Excel file contains State-specific, region-specific, and national statistics. For most files, trends begin in January 2017. Also included in each Excel file is a description of the HCUP databases and methodology.

The State Ambulatory Surgery Databases (SASD) contain the universe of hospital-based ambulatory surgery encounters in participating States. Some States include ambulatory surgery encounters from free-standing facilities as well. Restricted access data files are available with a data use agreement and brief online security training.

The data are translated into a uniform format to facilitate multi-State comparisons and analyses. The SASD include all patients in participating settings, regardless of payer, e.g., persons covered by Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and the uninsured.

The SASD contain clinical and resource use information included in a typical discharge abstract, with safeguards to protect the privacy of individual patients, physicians, and facilities (as required by data sources).

Data elements include but are not limited to: diagnoses, procedures, admission and discharge status, patient demographics (e.g., gender, age), total charges, and expected payment source (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay; for some States, additional discrete payer categories, such as managed care). In addition to the core set of uniform data elements common to all SASD, some include State-specific data elements, such as the patient's race. The SASD exclude data elements that could directly or indirectly identify individuals.

For some States, hospital and county identifiers are included that permit linkage to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey File and the Area Resource File.

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) is a unique and powerful database designed to support various types of analyses of national readmission rates for all payers and the uninsured. The NRD includes discharges for patients with and without repeat hospital visits in a year and those who have died in the hospital. Repeat stays may or may not be related. The criteria to determine the relationship between hospital admissions is left to the analyst using the NRD. This database addresses a large gap in health care data - the lack of nationally representative information on hospital readmissions for all ages. Outcomes of interest include national readmission rates, reasons for returning to the hospital for care, and the hospital costs for discharges with and without readmissions. Unweighted, the NRD contains data from approximately 18 million discharges each year. Weighted, it estimates roughly 35 million discharges. Developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HCUP data inform decision making at the national, State, and community levels.

The NRD is drawn from HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID) containing verified patient linkage numbers that can be used to track a person across hospitals within a State, while adhering to strict privacy guidelines. The NRD is not designed to support regional, State-, or hospital-specific readmission analyses.

The NRD contains more than 100 clinical and non-clinical data elements provided in a hospital discharge abstract. Data elements include but are not limited to: diagnoses, procedures, patient demographics (e.g., sex, age), expected source of payer, regardless of expected payer, including but not limited to Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, self-pay, or those billed as ‘no charge, discharge month, quarter, and year, total charges, length of stay, and data elements essential to readmission analyses. The NIS excludes data elements that could directly or indirectly identify individuals.

Restricted access data files are available with a data use agreement and brief online security training.

CDC began collecting childhood blood lead surveillance data in April 1995. The national surveillance system is composed of data from state and local health departments.

States maintain their own child-specific databases so they can identify duplicate test results or sequential test results on individual children. These databases contain follow-up data on children with elevated blood lead levels including data on medical treatment, environmental investigations, and potential sources of lead exposure. States extract fields from their child-specific surveillance databases and transfer them to CDC for the national database.

State child-specific databases contain follow-up data on children with elevated blood lead levels including data on medical treatment, environmental investigations, and potential sources of lead exposure. Surveillance fields for CDC's national database are extracted from state child-specific databases and transferred to CDC.

State surveillance systems are based on reports of blood lead tests from laboratories. Ideally, laboratories report results of all blood lead tests, not just elevated values, to state health departments. States determine the reporting level for blood lead tests and decide which data elements should accompany the blood lead test result.

These data were collected for program management purposes. The data have limitations, and we cannot compare across states or counties because data collection methods vary across grantees. Data are not generalizable at the national, state, or local level.

The State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) are State-specific files that include data for ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services from hospital-owned facilities. In addition, some States provide ambulatory surgery and outpatient services from nonhospital-owned facilities. The uniform format of the SASD helps facilitate cross-State comparisons. The SASD are well suited for research that requires complete enumeration of hospital-based ambulatory surgeries within geographic areas or States.

The HCUP Visualization of Inpatient Trends in COVID-19 and Other Conditions displays State-specific monthly trends in inpatient stays related to COVID-19 and other conditions, and facilitates comparisons of the number of hospital discharges, the average length of stays, and in-hospital mortality rates across patient/stay characteristics and States. This information is based on the HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID), starting with 2018 data, plus newer annual and quarterly inpatient data, if and when available.

Users can view maps and tables related to child welfare policies in the United States. Background The State Child Welfare Policy Database contains a variety of information related to child welfare policies in each state. Data topics are grouped under three categories: child welfare financing; kinship care policies; older youth in foster care. Child welfare financing provides data on topics such as total expenditures, TANF, Title IV, and medicaid. Kinship care policies includes information on locating kin, guardianship policies, foster care and private kin arrangement s. Older youth in foster care includes information on foster care age limits, placements for older youth, and state-funded independent living transition services. User FunctionalityUsers can search by topic or by state. Data is presented in either a table (for state specific information) or by map (for data topic information). Data is available on a state level. Data tables are available for download in Excel format. Data Notes The data source is clearly labeled, and a link to the data source or to the state's welfare website is provided.

Users can search legislation related to genetics. Topics include: birth defect registries, genetic counseling, genetic privacy, health care, health insurance, newborn screening, frozen embryos, laboratory standards, and testing standards. BackgroundThe Genetics Legislation Database is maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures. This database allows users to track genetics-related legislation. Topics include, but are not limited to: birth defect registries, genetic counseling, genetic privacy, health care, health insurance, newborn screening, frozen embryos, laboratory standards, and testing standards. User FunctionalityUsers can search state genetics legislation by topic, keyword, year, bill number, bill type, or bill status (i.e., adopted, enacted, vetoed, pending). Users can view summaries of state legislation. This database also provides links to state-specific databases with legislative information. Data NotesLegislation information is available for the 2004 through 2008 legislative sessions and is available on a state level. The website does not indicate when the database is updated.

EPA has compiled state, territorial, and authorized tribal water quality standards that EPA has approved or are otherwise in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. This compilation is continuously updated as EPA approves new or revised WQS.Please note the water quality standards may contain additional provisions outside the scope of the Clean Water Act, its implementing federal regulations, or EPA's authority. In some cases, these additional provisions have been included as supplementary information. EPA is posting the water quality standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes.

These four NetCDF databases constitute the bulk of the spatial and spatiotemporal environmental covariates used in a latent health factor index (LHFI) model for assessment and prediction of ecosystem health across the MDB. The data formatting and hierarchical statistical modelling were conducted under a CSIRO appropriation project funded by the Water for a Healthy Country Flagship from July 2012 to June 2014. Each database was created by collating and aligning raw data downloaded from the respective state government websites (QLD, NSW, VIC, and SA). (ACT data were unavailable.) There are two primary components in each state-specific database: (1) a temporally static data matrix with axes "Site ID" and "Variable," and (2) a 3D data cube with axes "Site ID", "Variable," and "Date." Temporally static variables in (1) include geospatial metadata (all states), drainage area (VIC and SA only), and stream distance (SA only). Temporal variables in (2) include discharge, water temperature, etc. Missing data (empty cells) are highly abundant in the data cubes. The attached state-specific README.pdf files contain additional details on the contents of these databases, and any computer code that was used for semi-automation of raw data downloads. Lineage: (1) For NSW I created the NetCDF database by (a) downloading CSV raw data from the NSW Office of Water real-time data website (http://realtimedata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm) during February-April 2013, then (b) writing computer programs to preprocess such raw data into the current format. (2) The same was done for QLD, except through the Queensland Water Monitoring Data Portal (http://watermonitoring.derm.qld.gov.au/host.htm). (3) The same was also done for SA, except through the SA WaterConnect => Data Systems => Surface Water Data website (https://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au/Systems/SWD/SitePages/Home.aspx) during April 2013 as well as May 2014. (4) For Victoria I created the NetCDF database by (a) manually downloading XLS raw data during November and December in 2013 from the Victoria DEPI Water Measurement Information System => Download Rivers and Streams sites website (http://data.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring.htm), then (b) writing computer programs to preprocess such raw data into CSV format (intermediate), then into the current final format.

Additional details on lineage are available from the attached README.pdf files.

United States agricultural researchers have many options for making their data available online. This dataset aggregates the primary sources of ag-related data and determines where researchers are likely to deposit their agricultural data. These data serve as both a current landscape analysis and also as a baseline for future studies of ag research data. Purpose As sources of agricultural data become more numerous and disparate, and collaboration and open data become more expected if not required, this research provides a landscape inventory of online sources of open agricultural data. An inventory of current agricultural data sharing options will help assess how the Ag Data Commons, a platform for USDA-funded data cataloging and publication, can best support data-intensive and multi-disciplinary research. It will also help agricultural librarians assist their researchers in data management and publication. The goals of this study were to

establish where agricultural researchers in the United States-- land grant and USDA researchers, primarily ARS, NRCS, USFS and other agencies -- currently publish their data, including general research data repositories, domain-specific databases, and the top journals compare how much data is in institutional vs. domain-specific vs. federal platforms determine which repositories are recommended by top journals that require or recommend the publication of supporting data ascertain where researchers not affiliated with funding or initiatives possessing a designated open data repository can publish data

Approach The National Agricultural Library team focused on Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and United States Forest Service (USFS) style research data, rather than ag economics, statistics, and social sciences data. To find domain-specific, general, institutional, and federal agency repositories and databases that are open to US research submissions and have some amount of ag data, resources including re3data, libguides, and ARS lists were analysed. Primarily environmental or public health databases were not included, but places where ag grantees would publish data were considered.
Search methods We first compiled a list of known domain specific USDA / ARS datasets / databases that are represented in the Ag Data Commons, including ARS Image Gallery, ARS Nutrition Databases (sub-components), SoyBase, PeanutBase, National Fungus Collection, i5K Workspace @ NAL, and GRIN. We then searched using search engines such as Bing and Google for non-USDA / federal ag databases, using Boolean variations of “agricultural data” /“ag data” / “scientific data” + NOT + USDA (to filter out the federal / USDA results). Most of these results were domain specific, though some contained a mix of data subjects. We then used search engines such as Bing and Google to find top agricultural university repositories using variations of “agriculture”, “ag data” and “university” to find schools with agriculture programs. Using that list of universities, we searched each university web site to see if their institution had a repository for their unique, independent research data if not apparent in the initial web browser search. We found both ag specific university repositories and general university repositories that housed a portion of agricultural data. Ag specific university repositories are included in the list of domain-specific repositories. Results included Columbia University – International Research Institute for Climate and Society, UC Davis – Cover Crops Database, etc. If a general university repository existed, we determined whether that repository could filter to include only data results after our chosen ag search terms were applied. General university databases that contain ag data included Colorado State University Digital Collections, University of Michigan ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research), and University of Minnesota DRUM (Digital Repository of the University of Minnesota). We then split out NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) repositories. Next we searched the internet for open general data repositories using a variety of search engines, and repositories containing a mix of data, journals, books, and other types of records were tested to determine whether that repository could filter for data results after search terms were applied. General subject data repositories include Figshare, Open Science Framework, PANGEA, Protein Data Bank, and Zenodo. Finally, we compared scholarly journal suggestions for data repositories against our list to fill in any missing repositories that might contain agricultural data. Extensive lists of journals were compiled, in which USDA published in 2012 and 2016, combining search results in ARIS, Scopus, and the Forest Service's TreeSearch, plus the USDA web sites Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Rural Development (RD), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The top 50 journals' author instructions were consulted to see if they (a) ask or require submitters to provide supplemental data, or (b) require submitters to submit data to open repositories. Data are provided for Journals based on a 2012 and 2016 study of where USDA employees publish their research studies, ranked by number of articles, including 2015/2016 Impact Factor, Author guidelines, Supplemental Data?, Supplemental Data reviewed?, Open Data (Supplemental or in Repository) Required? and Recommended data repositories, as provided in the online author guidelines for each the top 50 journals. Evaluation We ran a series of searches on all resulting general subject databases with the designated search terms. From the results, we noted the total number of datasets in the repository, type of resource searched (datasets, data, images, components, etc.), percentage of the total database that each term comprised, any dataset with a search term that comprised at least 1% and 5% of the total collection, and any search term that returned greater than 100 and greater than 500 results. We compared domain-specific databases and repositories based on parent organization, type of institution, and whether data submissions were dependent on conditions such as funding or affiliation of some kind. Results A summary of the major findings from our data review:

Over half of the top 50 ag-related journals from our profile require or encourage open data for their published authors. There are few general repositories that are both large AND contain a significant portion of ag data in their collection. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), ICPSR, and ORNL DAAC were among those that had over 500 datasets returned with at least one ag search term and had that result comprise at least 5% of the total collection.
Not even one quarter of the domain-specific repositories and datasets reviewed allow open submission by any researcher regardless of funding or affiliation.

See included README file for descriptions of each individual data file in this dataset. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Journals. File Name: Journals.csvResource Title: Journals - Recommended repositories. File Name: Repos_from_journals.csvResource Title: TDWG presentation. File Name: TDWG_Presentation.pptxResource Title: Domain Specific ag data sources. File Name: domain_specific_ag_databases.csvResource Title: Data Dictionary for Ag Data Repository Inventory. File Name: Ag_Data_Repo_DD.csvResource Title: General repositories containing ag data. File Name: general_repos_1.csvResource Title: README and file inventory. File Name: README_InventoryPublicDBandREepAgData.txt

Background: Drug overdoses and motor vehicle (MV) crashes are leading causes of unintentional injury death in the US, resulting in over 100,000 fatalities in 2017. Research has established that opioids affect driving ability and that crash-related injuries often result in opioid prescribing. Despite known associations, current approaches for studying these intertwined public health problems typically involve separate analyses using discrete databases. Purpose: To assess collection of relevant data elements and evaluate the linkage potential of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) with crash databases, and to determine knowledge gaps that can be addressed through effective linkage. Methods: Standardized templates were used to abstract specific data elements and attributes of MV crash and PDMP databases for all 50 states and DC. Abstracted PDMP elements included accessibility of PDMP data and schedules of controlled substances monitored in each state, while crash-related elements included whether crash reports document the type of drug test administered at the scene and the granularity of test results recorded. Results: A majority of PDMPs (94%) are authorized to release data for research purposes. Schedules II-V controlled substances are tracked in 76% of PDMPs, with the remaining tracking II-IV. Drug-related elements captured in crash reports varied considerably by state. Eighty-six percent of states document the type of drug test administered; however, 54% of states only record whether a drug test was positive or negative, with less than a third of states citing specific drugs. Collection of personal identifiers is required in all crash and PDMP databases, suggesting high potential for effective linkage. Conclusions: Lack of integration between crash and PDMP databases hinders advancement of the evidence base on the interconnected causes of unintentional injury death. While crash reports and PDMPs possess their own sets of strengths and weaknesses, linkage of these two data sources could fill critical research gaps

Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

Linear mixed effects model typical, random effects, and state-specific intercepts and slopes for AMI hospitalization rates.

Usage

The State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) are State-specific files that include data for ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services from hospital-owned facilities. In addition, some States provide ambulatory surgery and outpatient services from nonhospital-owned facilities. The uniform format of the SASD helps facilitate cross-State comparisons. The SASD are well suited for research that requires complete enumeration of hospital-based ambulatory surgeries within geographic areas or States.