Incident Reporting and Severity-Weighted Safety Learning in an Adult Regional Burn Center: A Five-Year Review

Clicks: 29
ID: 323907
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #34 of 93 articles by views in journal of burn care & research : official publication of the american burn association

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Voluntary incident-reporting systems are widely used in hospitals, but their value depends on classification quality, review processes, linkage to complementary safety pathways, and translation into learning. Burn centers are vulnerable to fragmented safety intelligence because care spans resuscitation, critical care, surgery, wound management, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and outpatient follow-up. We reviewed institutional incident reports assigned to an adult regional burn center from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2026. The dataset contained 1,418 reports. The most frequent categories were specimen or laboratory events, medication or fluid events, safety, security, or miscellaneous events, and pressure injuries. Harm level was not visible in structured form in 811 reports (57.2%). This absence was patterned: 546 of 547 specimen or laboratory reports and all 130 pressure-injury reports lacked visible structured harm classification. Pressure-injury stage or category was not reliably available in the analytic extract and was not imputed as a surrogate for harm. Among 607 reports with specified harm level, 16 were moderate and 4 severe. Severity-weighted review changed interpretation: infection prevention and control accounted for only 17 reports overall but 14 of 20 moderate or severe harm reports. Narrative follow-up was present in most high-harm reports, but structured contributing factors were absent in 17 of 20. Incident reporting should be one input into a severity-weighted burn-center learning system with harm classification at review or closure, escalation, action ownership, implementation resources, documented closure, and feedback to frontline teams.
Reference Key
openalex_W7172483459 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors H. Rode, Ashley Callahan, Megan Hamilton
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal journal of burn care & research : official publication of the american burn association
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jbcr/irag131
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irag131
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.