Cargando…

The design and evaluation of a system for improved surveillance and prevention programmes in resource-limited settings using a hospital-based burn injury questionnaire

BACKGROUND: Limited and fragmented data collection systems exist for burn injury. A global registry may lead to better injury estimates and identify risk factors. A collaborative effort involving the WHO, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, the CDC and the International Society for Burn Injuri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peck, Michael, Falk, Henry, Meddings, David, Sugerman, David, Mehta, Sumi, Sage, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853523/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27044496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041815
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Limited and fragmented data collection systems exist for burn injury. A global registry may lead to better injury estimates and identify risk factors. A collaborative effort involving the WHO, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, the CDC and the International Society for Burn Injuries was undertaken to simplify and standardise inpatient burn data collection. An expert panel of epidemiologists and burn care practitioners advised on the development of a new Global Burn Registry (GBR) form and online data entry system that can be expected to be used in resource-abundant or resource-limited settings. METHODS: International burn organisations, the CDC and the WHO solicited burn centre participation to pilot test the GBR system. The WHO and the CDC led a webinar tutorial for system implementation. RESULTS: During an 8-month period, 52 hospitals in 30 countries enrolled in the pilot and were provided the GBR instrument, guidance and a data visualisation tool. Evaluations were received from 29 hospitals (56%). KEY FINDINGS: Median time to upload completed forms was <10 min; physicians most commonly entered data (64%), followed by nurses (25%); layout, clarity, accuracy and relevance were all rated high; and a vast majority (85%) considered the GBR ‘highly valuable’ for prioritising, developing and monitoring burn prevention programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The GBR was shown to be simple, flexible and acceptable to users. Enhanced regional and global understanding of burn epidemiology may help prioritise the selection, development and testing of primary prevention interventions for burns in resource-limited settings.