| 1. |
- Bebbington, Emily, et al.
(author)
-
Exploring the similarities and differences of burn registers globally: Results from a data dictionary comparison study
- 2024
-
In: Burns. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0305-4179 .- 1879-1409. ; 50:4, s. 850-865
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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. (c) 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
|
|
| 2. |
- Gus, Eduardo, et al.
(author)
-
Burn unit design - the missing link for quality and safety.
- 2021
-
In: Journal of Burn Care & Research. - : Oxford University Press. - 1559-047X .- 1559-0488. ; 42:3, s. 369-375
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The relationship between infrastructure, technology, model of care and human resources influences patient outcomes and safety, staff productivity and satisfaction, retention of personnel, and treatment and social costs. This concept underpins the need for evidence-based design, and has been widely adopted to inform hospital infrastructure planning. The aim of this review is to establish evidence-based, universally-applicable key features of a burn unit that support function in a comprehensive patient-centred model of care. A literature search in medical, architectural and engineering databases was conducted. Burn associations' guidelines and relevant articles published in English, between 1990 and 2020, were included, and the available evidence is summarized in the review. Few studies have been published on burn unit design in the last thirty years. Most of them focus on the role of design in infection control and prevention, and consist primarily of descriptive or observational reports, opportunistic historical cohort studies, and reviews. The evidence available in the literature is not sufficient to create a definitive infrastructure guideline to inform burn unit design, and there are considerable difficulties in creating evidence that will be widely applicable. In the absence of a strong evidence base, consensus guidelines on burn unit infrastructure should be developed, to help healthcare providers, architects and engineers make informed decisions, when designing new or renovated facilities.
|
|
