A validity review of the national burn repository

Sandra L. Taylor, Deborah Lee, Travis Nagler, Mary Beth Lawless, Terese Curri, Tina L Palmieri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Health-related registries arose because of clinicians' desires to improve patient quality of care for a specific disorder. As such, disease registries differ from administrative registries in concept, organization, purpose, data recording, and results. Because of their voluntary nature, health-related disease registries are not regularly audited, have a narrow focus, and are designed for clinicians, not administrators. As part of a Department of Defense initiative, we conducted an intensive qualitative review of the American Burn Association's National Burn Repository (NBR). Our objectives are to inform future users of the NBR of issues that could affect statistical analyses and inferences and assist efforts to improve data collection. We obtained a deidentified copy of the 2009 release of the NBR containing 286,293 records. We reviewed this data set for 1) records lacking vital patient information (age, burn size, survival, gender); 2) inconsistencies between data in different fields of the database; and 3) duplicate values. By restricting our review to records with an admission year of 2000 or later, we found that vital patient information was missing or invalid for about 60,000 records. Data inconsistencies were found in hospital admission status (initial admission or readmission) for about 12,000 records, survival for about 950 records, and burn injury for about 5500 records. Depending on the criterion used to identify duplicate records, we found at least 4000 duplicate records but as many as 14,000 in the database. Finally, significant data quality issues were found for facilities not using the Trauma Registry for the American College of Surgeons (TRACS) software. All health-related disease registries, unlike administrative databases, are voluntary. Anonymity of data is vital, and data auditing and reporting are challenging. The data contained in the NBR is disease-specific, and, as such, has the potential to provide valuable epidemiologic, treatment, and outcome data as reported by clinicians, not registrars. The NBR provides substantive data on burn injury; however, data review needs to precede data analysis. Revisions to NBR data collection have improved the quality of data submitted, yet data quality issues remain in the current database. Investigators are cautioned to thoroughly assess all fields before conducting analyses using the NBR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)274-280
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Burn Care and Research
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2013

Fingerprint

Registries
Databases
Health
Wounds and Injuries
Survival
Quality of Health Care
Administrative Personnel
Patient Care
Research Design
Software
Research Personnel
Data Accuracy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Rehabilitation
  • Surgery

Cite this

A validity review of the national burn repository. / Taylor, Sandra L.; Lee, Deborah; Nagler, Travis; Lawless, Mary Beth; Curri, Terese; Palmieri, Tina L.

In: Journal of Burn Care and Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, 03.2013, p. 274-280.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Taylor, SL, Lee, D, Nagler, T, Lawless, MB, Curri, T & Palmieri, TL 2013, 'A validity review of the national burn repository', Journal of Burn Care and Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 274-280. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182642b46
Taylor, Sandra L. ; Lee, Deborah ; Nagler, Travis ; Lawless, Mary Beth ; Curri, Terese ; Palmieri, Tina L. / A validity review of the national burn repository. In: Journal of Burn Care and Research. 2013 ; Vol. 34, No. 2. pp. 274-280.
@article{d723d855b25d409a9e471dbcbedda151,
title = "A validity review of the national burn repository",
abstract = "Health-related registries arose because of clinicians' desires to improve patient quality of care for a specific disorder. As such, disease registries differ from administrative registries in concept, organization, purpose, data recording, and results. Because of their voluntary nature, health-related disease registries are not regularly audited, have a narrow focus, and are designed for clinicians, not administrators. As part of a Department of Defense initiative, we conducted an intensive qualitative review of the American Burn Association's National Burn Repository (NBR). Our objectives are to inform future users of the NBR of issues that could affect statistical analyses and inferences and assist efforts to improve data collection. We obtained a deidentified copy of the 2009 release of the NBR containing 286,293 records. We reviewed this data set for 1) records lacking vital patient information (age, burn size, survival, gender); 2) inconsistencies between data in different fields of the database; and 3) duplicate values. By restricting our review to records with an admission year of 2000 or later, we found that vital patient information was missing or invalid for about 60,000 records. Data inconsistencies were found in hospital admission status (initial admission or readmission) for about 12,000 records, survival for about 950 records, and burn injury for about 5500 records. Depending on the criterion used to identify duplicate records, we found at least 4000 duplicate records but as many as 14,000 in the database. Finally, significant data quality issues were found for facilities not using the Trauma Registry for the American College of Surgeons (TRACS) software. All health-related disease registries, unlike administrative databases, are voluntary. Anonymity of data is vital, and data auditing and reporting are challenging. The data contained in the NBR is disease-specific, and, as such, has the potential to provide valuable epidemiologic, treatment, and outcome data as reported by clinicians, not registrars. The NBR provides substantive data on burn injury; however, data review needs to precede data analysis. Revisions to NBR data collection have improved the quality of data submitted, yet data quality issues remain in the current database. Investigators are cautioned to thoroughly assess all fields before conducting analyses using the NBR.",
author = "Taylor, {Sandra L.} and Deborah Lee and Travis Nagler and Lawless, {Mary Beth} and Terese Curri and Palmieri, {Tina L}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182642b46",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "274--280",
journal = "Journal of Burn Care and Research",
issn = "1559-047X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A validity review of the national burn repository

AU - Taylor, Sandra L.

AU - Lee, Deborah

AU - Nagler, Travis

AU - Lawless, Mary Beth

AU - Curri, Terese

AU - Palmieri, Tina L

PY - 2013/3

Y1 - 2013/3

N2 - Health-related registries arose because of clinicians' desires to improve patient quality of care for a specific disorder. As such, disease registries differ from administrative registries in concept, organization, purpose, data recording, and results. Because of their voluntary nature, health-related disease registries are not regularly audited, have a narrow focus, and are designed for clinicians, not administrators. As part of a Department of Defense initiative, we conducted an intensive qualitative review of the American Burn Association's National Burn Repository (NBR). Our objectives are to inform future users of the NBR of issues that could affect statistical analyses and inferences and assist efforts to improve data collection. We obtained a deidentified copy of the 2009 release of the NBR containing 286,293 records. We reviewed this data set for 1) records lacking vital patient information (age, burn size, survival, gender); 2) inconsistencies between data in different fields of the database; and 3) duplicate values. By restricting our review to records with an admission year of 2000 or later, we found that vital patient information was missing or invalid for about 60,000 records. Data inconsistencies were found in hospital admission status (initial admission or readmission) for about 12,000 records, survival for about 950 records, and burn injury for about 5500 records. Depending on the criterion used to identify duplicate records, we found at least 4000 duplicate records but as many as 14,000 in the database. Finally, significant data quality issues were found for facilities not using the Trauma Registry for the American College of Surgeons (TRACS) software. All health-related disease registries, unlike administrative databases, are voluntary. Anonymity of data is vital, and data auditing and reporting are challenging. The data contained in the NBR is disease-specific, and, as such, has the potential to provide valuable epidemiologic, treatment, and outcome data as reported by clinicians, not registrars. The NBR provides substantive data on burn injury; however, data review needs to precede data analysis. Revisions to NBR data collection have improved the quality of data submitted, yet data quality issues remain in the current database. Investigators are cautioned to thoroughly assess all fields before conducting analyses using the NBR.

AB - Health-related registries arose because of clinicians' desires to improve patient quality of care for a specific disorder. As such, disease registries differ from administrative registries in concept, organization, purpose, data recording, and results. Because of their voluntary nature, health-related disease registries are not regularly audited, have a narrow focus, and are designed for clinicians, not administrators. As part of a Department of Defense initiative, we conducted an intensive qualitative review of the American Burn Association's National Burn Repository (NBR). Our objectives are to inform future users of the NBR of issues that could affect statistical analyses and inferences and assist efforts to improve data collection. We obtained a deidentified copy of the 2009 release of the NBR containing 286,293 records. We reviewed this data set for 1) records lacking vital patient information (age, burn size, survival, gender); 2) inconsistencies between data in different fields of the database; and 3) duplicate values. By restricting our review to records with an admission year of 2000 or later, we found that vital patient information was missing or invalid for about 60,000 records. Data inconsistencies were found in hospital admission status (initial admission or readmission) for about 12,000 records, survival for about 950 records, and burn injury for about 5500 records. Depending on the criterion used to identify duplicate records, we found at least 4000 duplicate records but as many as 14,000 in the database. Finally, significant data quality issues were found for facilities not using the Trauma Registry for the American College of Surgeons (TRACS) software. All health-related disease registries, unlike administrative databases, are voluntary. Anonymity of data is vital, and data auditing and reporting are challenging. The data contained in the NBR is disease-specific, and, as such, has the potential to provide valuable epidemiologic, treatment, and outcome data as reported by clinicians, not registrars. The NBR provides substantive data on burn injury; however, data review needs to precede data analysis. Revisions to NBR data collection have improved the quality of data submitted, yet data quality issues remain in the current database. Investigators are cautioned to thoroughly assess all fields before conducting analyses using the NBR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876293784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876293784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182642b46

DO - 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182642b46

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 274

EP - 280

JO - Journal of Burn Care and Research

JF - Journal of Burn Care and Research

SN - 1559-047X

IS - 2

ER -