Search

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. 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. 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. 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. • We explored misclassification of injury intent using burn register data from India. • Injury intent was the most commonly missing variable in the data set (12.6%). • Patients with overwriting of intent predominantly included females and large burns. • Females with burns categorised as 'other' or with missing data may be misclassified. • These findings highlight opportunities to improve quality of surveillance data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. • We detail how to use routinely collected data for a new electronic burn register. • Methods include how to assess data quality, digitise data, and complete verification. • Process mapping should be used to detail potential sources of selection bias. • Two-step verification yielded very low error rates (6 errors in 10,000 fields). • Data presented utilising these methods would adhere to STROBE and RECORD guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)