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. 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. 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. 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.

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/).

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.

Self-harm registers (SHRs) are an essential means of monitoring rates of self-harm and evaluating preventative interventions, but few SHRs exist in countries with the highest burden of suicides and self-harm. Current international guidance on establishing SHRs recommends data collection from emergency departments, but this does not adequately consider differences in the provision of emergency care globally. We aim to demonstrate that process mapping can be used prior to the implementation of an SHR to understand differing hospital systems. This information can be used to determine the method by which patients meeting the SHR inclusion criteria can be most reliably identified, and how to mitigate hospital processes that may introduce selection bias into these data. We illustrate this by sharing in detail the experiences from a government hospital and non-profit hospital in south India. We followed a five-phase process mapping approach developed for healthcare settings during 2019–2020. Emergency care provided in the government hospital was accessed through casualty department triage. The non-profit hospital had an emergency department. Both hospitals had open access outpatient departments. SHR inclusion criteria overlapped with conditions requiring Indian medicolegal registration. Medicolegal registers are the most likely single point to record patients meeting the SHR inclusion criteria from multiple emergency care areas in India (e.g., emergency department/casualty, outpatients, other hospital areas), but should be cross-checked against registers of presentations to the emergency department/casualty to capture less-sick patients and misclassified cases. Process mapping is an easily reproducible method that can be used prior to the implementation of an SHR to understand differing hospital systems. This information is pivotal to choosing which hospital record systems should be used for identifying patients and to proactively reduce bias in SHR data. The method is equally applicable in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

Background: The greatest proportion of burn injuries globally occur in South Asia, where there are also high numbers of intentional burns. Burn injury prevention efforts are hampered by poor surveillance data on injury intent. There is a plethora of local routinely collected data in the research literature from South Asia that could be used for epidemiological purposes, but it is not known whether the definitions and methods of differentiation of injury intent are sufficiently homogenous to allow valid study comparisons. Methods: We will conduct a systematic scoping review to understand terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia. The objectives of the study are to: determine the breadth of terminology and common terms used for burn injury intent; to determine if definitions are comparable across studies where the same term is used; and to appraise the rigour of methods used to differentiate burn injury intent and suitability for comparison across studies. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PakMediNet will be searched. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by two reviewers. To be included, the article must be as follows: peer reviewed, primary research, study cutaneous burns, based on hospital patients from a country in South Asia, and use intent terminology or discuss a method of differentiation of injury intent. Results will be restricted to English language studies. No date restrictions will be applied. A plain language summary and terminology section are included for non-specialist readers. Discussion: Results will be used to inform stakeholder work to develop standardised terminology and methods for burn injury intent in South Asia. They will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals wherever possible. Systematic review registration: This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DCYNQ).

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.