Development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is widely used for measurements of scar quality. This encompasses visual, tactile and sensory characteristics of the scar. The Patient Scale of previous POSAS versions was lacking input from patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale with involvement of adults patients with all scar types, complying with the highest clinimetric standards. METHODS: From February 2018 to April 2019, a series of six focus group interviews were performed in the Netherlands and Australia to identify scar quality characteristics that adults with scars consider to be important. All focus groups were transcribed, anonymized and analysed using a thematic analysis. Relevant characteristics were formulated into items, resulting in a Dutch and English version of the Patient Scale. These drafts were pilot tested in Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and refined accordingly. RESULTS: A total of 21 relevant scar quality characteristics were identified during the focus groups. Two distinct versions of the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale were developed. The Generic version contains 16 items and can be used for all scar types, except linear scars. The Linear Scar version of the Patient Scale contains the same 16 items, with an extra item referring to the widening of scar margins. All included items are rated on a verbal rating scale with five response options. CONCLUSION: Two versions of the POSAS3.0 Patient Scale were developed. Further field tests are being performed to establish the measurement properties and scoring algorithm of the scales.

From qualitative data to a measurement instrument: A clarification and elaboration of choices made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0.

PURPOSE: To clarify and elaborate on the choices that were made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 (POSAS 3.0), based upon the rich information obtained from patients during focus groups and pilot tests. METHODS: The discussions described in this paper are a reflection of the focus group study and pilot tests that were conducted in order to develop the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0. The focus groups took place in the Netherlands and Australia and included 45 participants. Pilot tests were performed with 15 participants in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: We discussed the selection, wording and merging of 17 included items. Additionally, the reason for exclusion of 23 characteristics are given. CONCLUSION: Based upon the unique and rich material of patient input obtained, two versions of the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0 were developed: the Generic version, and the Linear scar version. The discussions and decisions taken during the development are informative for a good understanding of the POSAS 3.0 and are indispensable as a background for future translations and cross-cultural adaptations.

The FLIR ONE thermal imager for the assessment of burn wounds: Reliability and validity study.

BACKGROUND: Objective measurement tools may be of great value to provide early and reliable burn wound assessment. Thermal imaging is an easy, accessible and objective technique, which measures skin temperature as an indicator of tissue perfusion. These thermal images might be helpful in the assessment of burn wounds. However, before implementation of a novel measurement tool into clinical practice is considered, it is appropriate to test its clinimetric properties (i.e. reliability and validity). The objective of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the recently introduced FLIR ONE thermal imager. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two observers obtained thermal images of burn wounds in adult patients at day 1-3, 4-7 and 8-10 after burn. Subsequently, temperature differences between the burn wound and healthy skin (ΔT) were calculated on an iPad mini containing the FLIR Tools app. To assess reliability, ΔT values of both observers were compared by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and measurement error parameters. To assess validity, the ΔT values of the first observer were compared to the registered healing time of the burn wounds, which was specified into three categories: (I) ≤14 days, (II) 15-21 days and (III) >21 days. The ability of the FLIR ONE to discriminate between healing ≤21 days and >21 days was evaluated by means of a receiver operating characteristic curve and an optimal ΔT cut-off value. RESULTS: Reliability: ICCs were 0.99 for each time point, indicating excellent reliability up to 10 days after burn. The standard error of measurement varied between 0.17-0.22°C. VALIDITY: the area under the curve was calculated at 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.84). A cut-off value of -1.15°C shows a moderate discrimination between burn wound healing ≤21 days and >21 days (46% sensitivity; 82% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our results show that the FLIR ONE thermal imager is highly reliable, but the moderate validity calls for additional research. However, the FLIR ONE is pre-eminently feasible, allowing easy and fast measurements in clinical burn practice.