Developing the first Bi-National clinical quality registry for burns—Lessons learned so far Dina Watterson a, *, Belinda J. Gabbe a , Heather Cleland b , Dale Edgar c , Peter Cameron a Members of the Bi-NBR Steering Committee a Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia b Department of Surgery, Monash University & Victorian Adult Burns Service, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia c Western Australian Burn Service, Royal Perth Hospital; Burn Injury Research Unit, University of Western Australia; McComb Foundation of WA, Perth, Australia 1. Introduction Burn is a distinct and important component of the overall burden of injury. Prior to 2004, Australia and New Zealand (NZ) lacked a systematic way of measuring burn incidence, aetiology, quality of care or patient outcomes, with little consensus on how best to compare burn services and regions. Existing local burn registries differed in their aims, dataset definitions and outputs, limiting benchmarking quality of care and outcomes. Like the wider international burns community, variations in the treatment and manage- ment of burns exist across Australia, and between Australia and NZ, with little understanding of the impact of these variations on patient outcomes [2–6]. Therefore, the need to develop a consistent approach to evaluate and compare b u r n s 3 8 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 5 2 – 6 0 a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Accepted 10 March 2011 Keywords: Burns Clinical quality registry Burn database a b s t r a c t Background: Prior to 2004, Australia and New Zealand lacked a systematic method to measure burn incidence, aetiology and quality of care or outcomes for burn patients. The Australian and New Zealand Burn Association (ANZBA) commenced the Bi-National Burns Registry (Bi-NBR) at that time. As a result of the limitations identified with the registry, ANZBA collaborated with Monash University to develop the registry as a clinical quality registry [1]. Method: A Steering Committee was formed to oversee the conduct and development of the registry. A Reference Committee revised the minimum dataset and working parties devel- oped clinical quality indicators, and an outcome pilot project. Results: Institutional ethics approval has been obtained for 16 out of 17 sites and a for- malised governance process developed. The minimum dataset was improved and includes clinical quality indicators. The Bi-NBR clinical quality registry was launched on July 1st 2009. A long-term outcome pilot project has been developed with five burn units participating (recruitment commenced October 2009). Conclusion: Through a rigorous development process, a clinical quality registry for burns has been established which allows benchmarking of processes and outcomes between units. The intention is that all burns units across Australia and New Zealand will contribute to the registry. # 2011 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author at: Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. Tel.: +61 408583947. E-mail address: Dina.Watterson@monash.edu (D. Watterson). available at w ww.s c ienc ed irec t.c o m journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/burns 0305-4179/$36.00 # 2011 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2011.03.005