Burn injury characteristics, referral pattern, treatment (costs), and outcome in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized Burn Centre (BURN-Pro)
-
Published:2023-02-03
Issue:3
Volume:49
Page:1505-1515
-
ISSN:1863-9933
-
Container-title:European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Author:
Van Yperen Daan T., Van Lieshout Esther M. M.ORCID, Van Baar Margriet E., Polinder Suzanne, Verhofstad Michael H. J., Van der Vlies Cornelis H., Cardon Anne Y. M. V. P., De Rijcke Piet A. R., Guijt Marc, Klem Taco M. A. L., Lansink Koen W. W., Punt Bas J., Ringburg Akkie N., Staarink Maarten, Van der Veen Alexander H., Van Eerten Percy V., Van Eijck Floortje C., Vegt Paul A., Vos Dagmar I., Waleboer Marco,
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Data on the epidemiology, treatment, and outcome of burn patients treated at non-burn centre hospitals are not available. The primary aim was to compare the burn characteristics of patients admitted to a hospital with or without a specialized burn centre.
Methods
This multicentre, prospective, cohort study enrolled patients with burns admitted to a hospital without a burn centre and patients with < 10% total body surface area (TBSA) burned admitted to the burn centre. Primary outcome measure was the burn-related injury characteristics. Secondary outcome measures were adherence to the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria, treatment (costs), quality of life, and scar quality.
Results
During the 2-year study period, 48 patients were admitted to a non-burn centre and 148 patients to the burn centre. In the non-burn centre group, age [44 (P25–P75 26–61) versus 30 (P25–P75 8–52) years; P = 0.007] and Injury Severity Score [2 (P25–P75 1–4) versus 1 (P25–P75 1–1); P < 0.001] were higher. In the burn centre group, the TBSA burned was significantly higher [4% (P25–P75 2–6) versus 2% (P25–P75 1–4); P = 0.001], and more surgical procedures were performed (in 54 versus 7 patients; P = 0.004). At 12 months, > 85% of the non-burn centre group and > 75% of the burn centre group reported no problems in quality of life. Scar quality score was < 1.5 in both groups, with significantly poorer scores in the burn centre group (P ≤ 0.007).
Conclusion
Both groups differed in patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. At 12 months, quality of life and scar quality were good in both groups. Significantly poorer scar quality scores were found in the burn centre group. This might be related to their larger burns and more frequent surgery. The organization of burn care in the Netherlands seems to work adequately. Patients are treated locally when possible and are transferred when necessary.
Funder
Dutch Burns Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Emergency Medicine,Surgery
Reference21 articles.
1. The Education Committee of the Australian and New Zealand Burn Association. Emergency management of severe burns (EMSB) course manual, Dutch version. Dutch Burn Foundation; 2009. 2. Dokter J, Vloemans AF, Beerthuizen GI, Van der Vlies CH, Boxma H, Breederveld R, et al. Epidemiology and trends in severe burns in the Netherlands. Burns. 2014;40:1406–14. 3. The Dutch Burn Repository Group. Dutch Burn Repository R3; short report 2019. Beverwijk: Association of Dutch Burn Centres; 2019. 4. Brooks R, Rabin RE, de Charro F. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. 5. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1960–5 (discussion 6–7).
|
|