Incident Reporting

We extracted information on the title, length of the video (in minutes), total views, days since upload, likes and dislikes. Calculations of views/day were performed. The videos was further divided into four categories [16 (link), 17 (link)]: Education; Entertainment; News & Politics; People & Blogs. More specifically, medical courses or other academic videos were divided into “Education”; comedies and talk shows were divided into “Entertainment”; videos form government agencies and news reports about food poisoning incidents or outbreaks were divided into “News & Politics”; videos depicting personal food poisoning experiences or videos showing personal opinions about food poisoning were divided into “personal & blogs”. For example, a video describing the difference between a stomach flu and food poisoning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC7UaLIAEP4) was divided into “Education”.
A customized usefulness scoring scheme was created where scores were given for video quality and specific content. The Global Quality Scale (GQS) [18 (link)] was used to assess the overall quality of all selected videos. As shown in Table 1, GQS was a five-point Likert scale based on the quality of information, the flow and ease of use of the information present online. Seven content-specific items were also developed to assess whether videos discussed risk factors, epidemiology, etiology, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of food poisoning. According to the video details of each item, the video was given 0 point (Not mentioned), 1 point (Briefly introduced) and 2 points (Introduced in detail). The total usefulness score is the sum of the GQS score and content score. According to the total score, the videos was categorized as slightly useful (1–6), useful (7–13), very useful (14–19).Table 1

Global Quality Scale Criteria Used to Score Videos Containing Information About Food Poisoning

Score	Global Score Description
1	Poor quality, poor flow of the site, most information missing, not at all useful for patients
2	Generally poor quality and poor flow, some information listed but many important topics missing, of very limited use to patients
3	Moderate quality, suboptimal flow, some important information is adequately discussed but others poorly discussed, somewhat useful for patients
4	Good quality and generally good flow, most of the relevant information is listed, but some topics not covered, useful for patients
5	Excellent quality and excellent flow, very useful for patients

Each video was scored by two independent viewers (M. Li, S.M. Yan) who were knowledgeable in the risk factors, epidemiology, etiology, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of food poisoning. If the content scores or GQS scores given by two viewers differ by three or more points, then the final score is given by an arbitrator (W.W. Cui). In addition to the scores given by the arbitrator, the scores given by the two viewers were then averaged to give an overall score that was used for final results and statistical analysis.

Each incident report underwent data coding using multi-axial frameworks to describe incident types (primary and contributory), potential contributory factors, incident outcomes, and harm severity (S2–S4 Texts) [23 ,25 (link),28 (link)]. Primary incidents included those proximal (chronologically) to the patient outcome, whereas contributory incidents included those that contributed to the occurrence of another incident. Multiple codes for incident type, contributory factor, and incident outcome were applied to each report where necessary. The codes were applied systematically and chronologically according to nine recursive incident analysis rules developed by the Australian Patient Safety Foundation (S1 Table) [29 ]. This permitted modeling of the steps preceding and leading to primary incidents, e.g., contributory incidents and factors, which, in turn, resulted in patient outcomes (S1 Fig). The incident type, contributory factor, and incident outcome frameworks were developed in house [28 (link)]. Each incident report in the NRLS comes with a reporter-allocated harm severity; however, where the free-text descriptions conflicted with the reporter-allocated harm severity, harm severity was reclassified using WHO International Classification for Patient Safety definitions (see Table 1 for WHO definitions of harm severity) [3 ,23 ,25 (link),30 ]. The medications involved in medication incidents were recorded and classified using the British National Formulary for Children, and the types of conditions affecting these children were recorded and classified using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) (S2 Table) [31 ,32 ]. A random 20% sample of reports was independently double-coded by P. R. and H. W.

Complications associated with volar plate injuries to the PIPJ (Eaton type I, II, IIIA) are commonly reported in the literature and include FFD of the PIPJ, PIPJ extension lag, persistent pain, persistent oedema, reduced flexion and reduced grip strength.
These common complications are usually managed through hand therapy intervention. The hand therapists at Sydney Hospital Hand Unit are experienced therapists able to identify and treat these complications. In addition, all treating and assessing hand therapists will be provided with training that will include identification and treatment of these impairments. A treatment guideline has been developed to assist with managing these impairments.
Less common complications associated with volar plate injuries to the PIPJ include instability and re-dislocation of the PIPJ. These complications are not anticipated to occur as joints that are unstable are more likely to be associated with Eaton Type IIIb and are excluded from this study.
If an unanticipated event occurs these will be reported back to the researcher by face- to-face communication; email or phone. The researcher is on site, which should make reporting of incidents from a research point of view easy and efficient. The assessing therapists will also be able to identify complications at each assessment point using the assessment sheet; if a re-dislocation occurs an incident report should be lodged by the treating/assessing therapist. If an incident report is made the researcher will be notified via email. This is as per standard clinical practice within the hand unit at Sydney Hospital.
In terms of clinical management of less common complications these will be managed as per standard practice. There are clear management guidelines established within the hand unit at Sydney Hospital and include; reviewing the patient with a senior hand therapist in the team; organising a medical review for the patient by liaising with a person in the medical team in the hand clinic, by contacting the on-call hand surgeon and organising an urgent review and by lodging an incident report via the online reporting system.
A document will be used to record common and uncommon complications in both groups and reviewed by the investigative team every 3 months. Any strong imbalance between treatment groups will be reported to the clinical head of the Hand Unit and the Ethics Committee who may terminate the trial.

The annual financial impact of adopting DOACs for treating VTE in a Thai healthcare setting was estimated using a budget impact analysis. The budget impact was calculated with a 5-year time horizon and the 6-month medication treatment costs. The incidence of VTE patients and the number of Thai people aged over 60 years were used to estimate the annual number of VTE patients in Thailand. As there were no reports of VTE incidence in Thailand, the incidence of VTE from an Asian country was used [51 (link)]. The 5% DOAC uptake rate was assumed to calculate the number of VTE patients receiving DOACs each year. The assumption was consistent with a previous budget impact analysis study [52 (link)]. The inputs for the budget impact are presented in Table S2 in the Additional File.