Search

Introduction: Burn registers are an important source of surveillance data on injury intent. These data are considered essential to inform prevention activities. In South Asia, intentional burn injuries are thought to disproportionately affect women. Assessment of injury intent is difficult because it is influenced by personal, family, social, and legal sensitivities. This can introduce misclassification into data, and bias analyses. We conducted a descriptive, hypothesis generating study to explore misclassification of injury intent using data from a newly digitised single centre burn register in south India., Methods: Data from 1st February 2016 to 28th February 2022 were analysed. All patients in the data set were included in the study (n = 1930). Demographic and clinical characteristics for patients are described for each classification of injury intent. All data cleaning and analyses were completed using RStudio., Results: Injury intent data were missing for 12.6% of cases. It was the most commonly missing variable in the data set. "Accidental" injuries had a similar distribution over time, age, and total body surface area (TBSA) for males and females. "Homicidal" injuries were more common in females. Injuries reported as "Suicidal" affected men and women equally. A decrease in reporting of "Suicidal" injuries in females corresponded to an increase in high TBSA injuries classified as 'Other' or with missing data. Overwriting of injury intent was present in 1.5% of cases. The overwritten group had a greater proportion of females (62.1% vs. 48.5%) and higher median TBSA (77.5% vs. 27.5%) compared to the group where intent was not overwritten., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that some subgroups, such as females with high TBSA burns, appear to be more likely to be misclassified and should be the focus of future research. They also highlight that quality of surveillance data could be improved by recording of clinical impression, change in patient reported intent, and use of a common data element for intent to standardise data collection. We also recommend that injury intent is recorded as a unique variable and should not be mixed with other elements of injury causation (e.g. mechanism). Although this is a single centre study, the methods will be of interest to those who utilise routinely collected data and wish to reduce misclassification of this important variable., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pooling and comparing data from the existing global network of burn registers represents a powerful, yet untapped, opportunity to improve burn prevention and care. There have been no studies investigating whether registers are sufficiently similar to allow data comparisons. It is also not known what differences exist that could bias analyses. Understanding this information is essential prior to any future data sharing. The aim of this project was to compare the variables collected in countrywide and intercountry burn registers to understand their similarities and differences., Methods: Register custodians were invited to participate and share their data dictionaries. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were compared to understand each register population. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the number of unique variables. Variables were classified into themes. Definition, method, timing of measurement, and response options were compared for a sample of register concepts., Results: 13 burn registries participated in the study. Inclusion criteria varied between registers. Median number of variables per register was 94 (range 28 - 890), of which 24% (range 4.8 - 100%) were required to be collected. Six themes (patient information, admission details, injury, inpatient, outpatient, other) and 41 subthemes were identified. Register concepts of age and timing of injury show similarities in data collection. Intent, mechanism, inhalational injury, infection, and patient death show greater variation in measurement., Conclusions: We found some commonalities between registers and some differences. Commonalities would assist in any future efforts to pool and compare data between registers. Differences between registers could introduce selection and measurement bias, which needs to be addressed in any strategy aiming to facilitate burn register data sharing. We recommend the development of common data elements used in an international minimum data set for burn injuries, including standard definitions and methods of measurement, as the next step in achieving burn register data sharing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors, with the exception of AY, have completed an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors disclosure of interest form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/. EB, JM, MB, RLB, LD, ME, YI, LP, NZ, and YS do not have any interests to declare. NB declares financial payments from Central Ohio Trauma Services as an ATLS instructor, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals as a speaker, Vericel Corporation as an instructor, and Carpenter Lipps and Leland for expert testimony. NB receives a stipend from The Ohio State University for travel and meetings. NB is a board member of the Trauma Intervention Program and Epic Trauma steering board, both of which are unpaid positions. KM declares that the contents of this manuscript relating to the Burn Model System were developed under a grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant number 90DPGE0004). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this manuscript do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. OCT is the lead of the German Burn Registry and member of the steering committee of the German Society for Burn Treatment. LMT is a Representative on the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand steering committee, and representative on the Australian and New Zealand Burn Association board. KD is the medical director of the International Burn Injury Database. As part of this role, he is the co-chair of the Burn Care Informatics Group. This is a part time role funded by the NHS., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A key component in the classification of all injury types is to differentiate whether the injury was deliberately inflicted and by whom, commonly known as "intent" in the surveillance literature. These data guide patient care and inform surveillance strategies. South Asia is believed to have the greatest number of intentional burn injuries, but national surveillance data is not disaggregated by injury intent. Scientific literature can be used for injury surveillance where national data collection does not exist. In order to synthesise research findings, it is essential to assess the potential impact of misclassification bias. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review to understand terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia., Methods: We followed the methods in our registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DCYNQ). Studies met defined population, concept, context, and study design criteria. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and PakMediNet were searched. Two reviewers independently screened results. Data were extracted in a standardised manner and verified. The rigour of the method used to differentiate injury intent was appraised., Results: 1435 articles were screened. Of these, 89 met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were from India and Pakistan, and used an observational study design. There were 14 stem terms used in the articles. The most common was "cause". There were 40 classifier terms. The most common were "accident", "suicide", and "homicide". Few articles defined these terms. The method used to differentiate injury intent was only described explicitly in 17% of articles and the rigour of the methods used were low. Where methods of differentiation were described, they appear to be based on patient or family report rather than multidisciplinary assessment., Conclusion: The heterogeneity in terms, lack of definitions, and limited investigation of injury intent means this variable is likely to be prone to misclassification bias. We strongly recommend that the global burn community unites to develop a common data element, including definitions and methods of assessment, for the concept of burn injury intent to enable more reliable data collection practices and interstudy comparisons., Competing Interests: Declarations of interest None., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Burn registers provide important data that can track injury trends and evaluate services. Burn registers are concentrated in high-income countries, but most burn injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries where surveillance data are limited. Injury surveillance guidance recommends utilisation of existing routinely collected data where data quality is adequate, but there is a lack of guidance on how to achieve this. Our aim was to develop a rigorous and reproducible method to establish an electronic burn register from existing routinely collected data that can be implemented in low resource settings., Methods: Data quality of handwritten routinely collected records (register books) from a tertiary government hospital burn unit in Mysore, India was assessed prior to digitisation. Process mapping was conducted for burn patient presentations. Register and casualty records were compared to assess the case ascertainment rate. Register books from February 2016 to February 2022 were scanned and anonymised. Scans were quality checked and stored securely. An online data entry form was developed. All data underwent double verification., Results: Process mapping suggested data were reliable, and case ascertainment was 95%. 1930 presentations were recorded in the registers, representing 0.84% of hospital all-cause admissions. 388 pages were scanned with 4.4% requiring rescanning due to quality problems. Two-step verification estimated there to be errors remaining in 0.06% of fields following data entry., Conclusion: We have described, using the example of a newly established electronic register in India, methods to assess the suitability and reliability of existing routinely collected data for surveillance purposes, to digitise handwritten data, and to quantify error during the digitisation process. The methods are likely to be of particular interest to burn units in countries with no active national burns register. We strongly recommend mobilisation of resources for digitisation of existing high quality routinely collected data as an important step towards developing burn surveillance systems in low resource settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest none., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We integrated two factors, demographic population shifts and changes in prevalence of disease, to predict future trends in demand for hand surgery in England, to facilitate workforce planning., Methods: We analysed Hospital Episode Statistics data for Dupuytren's disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, and trigger finger from 1998 to 2011. Using linear regression, we estimated trends in both diagnosis and surgery until 2030. We integrated this regression with age specific population data from the Office for National Statistics in order to estimate how this will contribute to a change in workload over time., Results: There has been a significant increase in both absolute numbers of diagnoses and surgery for all four conditions. Combined with future population data, we calculate that the total operative burden for these four conditions will increase from 87,582 in 2011 to 170,166 (95% confidence interval 144,517-195,353) in 2030., Discussion: The prevalence of these diseases in the ageing population, and increasing prevalence of predisposing factors such as obesity and diabetes, may account for the predicted increase in workload. The most cost effective treatments must be sought, which requires high quality clinical trials. Our methodology can be applied to other sub-specialties to help anticipate the need for future service provision., (Copyright © 2014 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)