'In-home injuries' are those that occur within the house or its immediate surroundings. The literature on the prevalence and magnitude of home injuries is sparse. This study was designed to characterize the mechanisms of 'in-home' injuries and compare their outcomes with 'outside home injuries'. The Australia-India Trauma Systems Collaboration (AITSC) Project created a multicentric registry consisting of trauma patients admitted at four urban tertiary care hospitals in India from April 2016 to March 2018. This registry data was analysed for this study. All admitted patients except for dead on arrival were included. Patients were categorised into 'in-home' and 'outside home' cohorts based on the place where the trauma occurred. The outcome measures were 30 day in-hospital mortality and the length of hospital stay. Two subgroup analyses were performed, the first comprised pediatric patients (64 years). Among 9354 patients in the AITSC data registry, 8398 patients were included in the study. Out of these, 29 percent were in-home injuries, whereas the rest occurred outside home. The 30 day in-hospital mortality was 10.6 percent in the 'in-home' cohort, as compared to 13.7 percent in the 'outside home' cohort. This difference although significant on univariable analysis (p <0.01), there was no significant difference on multivariable regression analysis, after adjusting for age and injury severity score (OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.73-1.04; p = 0.15). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the home injuries group (median = 5 days; IQR = 3-12 days) compared to the outside-home group (median = 7 days; IQR = 4-14 days) (p < 0.01). In the pediatric and the elderly, on multivariable regression analysis, in-home injuries were associated with higher mortality than outside home injuries. There was no significant difference in the 30 day in-hospital mortality amongst admitted trauma patients sustaining injuries at home or outside the home. However, in pediatric and elderly patients the chances of mortality was significantly higher when injured at home.

Academic global surgery is a rapidly growing field that aims to improve access to safe surgical care worldwide. However, no universally accepted competencies exist to inform this developing field. A consensus-based approach, with input from a diverse group of experts, is needed to identify essential competencies that will lead to standardization in this field. A task force was set up using snowball sampling to recruit a broad group of content and context experts in global surgical and perioperative care. A draft set of competencies was revised through the modified Delphi process with two rounds of anonymous input. A threshold of 80% consensus was used to determine whether a competency or sub-competency learning objective was relevant to the skillset needed within academic global surgery and perioperative care. A diverse task force recruited experts from 22 countries to participate in both rounds of the Delphi process. Of the n = 59 respondents completing both rounds of iterative polling, 63% were from low- or middle-income countries. After two rounds of anonymous feedback, participants reached consensus on nine core competencies and 31 sub-competency objectives. The greatest consensus pertained to competency in ethics and professionalism in global surgery (100%) with emphasis on justice, equity, and decolonization across multiple competencies. This Delphi process, with input from experts worldwide, identified nine competencies which can be used to develop standardized academic global surgery and perioperative care curricula worldwide. Further work needs to be done to validate these competencies and establish assessments to ensure that they are taught effectively.

Background: Burns result in approximately 180,000 deaths annually, with the majority occurring in rural regions of Africa and Southeast Asia. This study aimed to assess the available resources, key challenges, and potential solutions in burn care from the perspective of healthcare providers in India. Methods: An online survey was conducted among burn care professionals across India. The survey was disseminated via social media platforms, burn care networks, and hospital representatives. Results: A total of 105 respondents, primarily from tertiary care centers, participated in the survey. Of these, 64.2% were affiliated with government hospitals, and 40.1% served catchment areas extending beyond 300 km. Dedicated burn units were present in 88.0% of government hospitals, compared to 66.9% in non-government facilities. Treatment costs were significantly lower in government hospitals, with 88.8% offering care either free of charge or at minimal cost (p ≤ 0.00001). Conclusions: The findings reveal significant gaps in staff training, intensive care monitoring, and infection prevention. Many patients initially seek help from traditional healers, often delaying appropriate treatment and worsening outcomes. Enhancing education, implementing standard monitoring practices, and ensuring adherence to clinical protocols are critical steps toward improving burn care outcomes in India.