Does Self-Assessment Improve the Effectiveness of Grand Rounds Lectures in a Community-Based Teaching Hospital?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of self-assessment (SA) questions affects the effectiveness of weekly didactic grand rounds presentations. DESIGN: From 26 consecutive grand rounds presentations from August 2013 to April 2014, a 52-question multiple-choice test was administered based on 2 questions from each presentation. SETTING: Community teaching institution. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents, students, and attending physicians. RESULTS: The test was administered to 66 participants. The mean score was 41.8%. There was no difference in test score based on experience with similar scores for junior residents, senior residents, and attending surgeons (43%, 46%, and 44%; p = 0.13). Most participants felt they would be most interested in presentations directly related to their surgical specialty. Participants, however, did not score differently on topics which were the focus of the program (40% vs. 42%; p = 0.85). Journal club presentations (39% vs. others 42%; p = 0.33) also did not affect the score. The Pearson correlation coefficient for attendance was 0.49 (p < 0.0001) demonstrated that attendance was very important. Participation in the weekly SA was significantly associated with improved score as those who participated in SA scored over 20% higher than those who did not (59% vs. 38%; p < 0.0001). Based on multiple linear regression for mean score, SA explained the variation in score more than attendance. CONCLUSIONS: The current study found that without preparation approximately 40% of material presented is retained after 10 months. Participation in weekly SA significantly improved retention of information from grand rounds presentations.

Reimbursement for out-of-state burn patients is not always lower than that for in-state patients at regional burn centers.

Because burn care in the United States is regionalized, burn patients are often transported across state lines to receive their burn treatment. The authors hypothesized that there are differences between in-state and out-of-state reimbursement for burn care. This project was conducted by the American Burn Association (ABA) Government Affairs Committee through the ABA Multicenter Trials Group. Participation was open to any member of the ABA. This retrospective observational study was approved by the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Subjects were identified using registry of each site, selecting patients hospitalized for burn injuries during FY2004-FY2006 of the hospitals. Once identified by the registry, the ID numbers were used to collect billing and reimbursement data from the financial offices. Data were sorted by age (adult and pediatric), location (in state and out of state), and payor source (Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, workers compensation, and self-pay). The rate of reimbursement was calculated based on charges and recoveries. Comparisons on data of each center were performed using Student's t-test with type I error <1%. Six facilities contributed data. A total of 4850 burn patients were reviewed, of whom 3941 were in-state burn patients and 909 were out-of-state burn patients. When the results from all six states were analyzed together, reimbursement for adults from Medicaid and Medicare was higher for in-state patients than for out-of-state patients. However, when analyzed by state, Medicare reimbursement between in-state and out-of-state patients did not differ significantly. In one state (Kansas), in-state Medicaid reimbursement was higher, but in two others (Arizona and Pennsylvania), in-state Medicaid reimbursement was lower than that for out-of-state reimbursement. Reimbursement for the care of children did not differ significantly based on state of residence. From these data, we conclude that there are indeed variations between in-state and out-of-state reimbursement, but those variations differ regionally. Indeed, in some cases, out-of-state reimbursement exceeds in-state reimbursement. Careful examination of these data is necessary before recommending policy change, although consideration should be given to a national policy that guarantees uniformity of reimbursement across all payors for burn patients regardless of their state of residence.

Burn care professionals' attitudes and practices regarding discussions of sexuality and intimacy with adult burn survivors.

Burn injury survival means coping with more than just the physical changes and disabilities often encountered after burn injury. Overall quality of life is important, and issues such as sexuality and intimacy are significant facets of quality of life. A literature review revealed limited research regarding current burn center practices related to sexuality and intimacy concerns of burn survivors and their partners. A 28-item survey, designed by seasoned burn care professionals and survivors, was distributed to burn care practitioners attending general sessions at several burn conferences in the United States. Seventy-one (86%) of the invited respondents completed the survey, with nursing representing the majority (63%). Mean tenure working in burn care was 10 years. Mean age of respondents was 40.5 years, with 75% being female and 25% male. Nearly half (47%) reported that specific staff was not designated to discuss sexuality and intimacy with survivors in their center. Sixty-two percent reported that special training regarding sexuality and intimacy was not available at their burn center. Only 14% of respondents indicated that they were "very comfortable" initiating conversation regarding these topics. Fifty-five percent said they were only likely to discuss sexuality and intimacy if the patient/partner initiated the discussion; however, 95% agreed that the patient should not have this responsibility. Although results represent findings from only 37 burn centers, the issues of sexuality and intimacy are not being effectively addressed in the participating centers. Designated staff to provide education is lacking, and there is limited comfort on the part of health care providers in initiating such conversations. These factors seem to often prevent burn care professionals from adequately addressing burn survivor's sexuality and intimacy needs and establish the need for further development of training and educational materials specific to sexuality, intimacy, and burn injury survival. The limited number and lack of diversity among participants create potential for bias and limit generalizability of results.

Scald burns in young children--a review of Arizona burn center pediatric patients and a proposal for prevention in the Hispanic community.

Arizona Burn Center staff observed an increasing number of pediatric scald burn admissions. Therefore, a retrospective study was conducted to identify scald demographics and etiologies. Focus groups were subsequently conducted to determine burn prevention knowledge in the target community. Arizona Burn Center scald admission variables (ages 0-5 years) reviewed included age, sex, ethnicity, TBSA, body parts burned, occurrence month and location, caregiver present, child and caregiver activities when injured, payor source, length of stay, parental language, and zip code. High-risk zip code area focus groups were then conducted. There were a total of 170 pediatric patients, aged 0 to 5 years, admitted to the burn center during 2005 to 2006. Of this total, 124 of the patients were admitted for scald burns, accounting for 59% of all pediatric burn admissions. Scald burn patient's demographics included male (52%), female (48%) with a mean age of 1.7 years. Majority ethnicity was Hispanic (63%). The mean TBSA was 8% with mean length of stay of 8 days. The remaining pediatric admissions for children aged 0 to 5 were for burns caused by fire or flame 15%, contact with a hot object 13%, friction burns 7%, chemical burns 3%, and electrical burns 3%. Demographics for the combined etiologies included an identical sex breakdown with male (52%) and female (48%). The majority ethnicity in the nonscald group was also Hispanic at 59% with a mean length of stay of 7 days and an average TBSA of 9.5%. Main etiologies of scald burns included hot water (25%), soup (24%), and coffee or tea (21%). Most common child behaviors were pulling hot substance from stove (24%), from countertop (13%), and having liquid spilled on them (13%) typically while caregiver was cooking. Mean TBSA was 8% with mean length of stay (8 days). Scalds occurred in the kitchen (83%) and mainly in child's home (94%). Mother was primary caregiver (78%). Payor source was Medicaid (86%) and the average admission cost was dollars 60,075. Only 36% of parents spoke Spanish as their primary language. Scalds (43%) usually occurred during year's first quarter (P < .001). Focus group participants (85%) reported receiving no prior burn prevention education and preferred to receive prevention instruction in small groups through established community agencies. Results suggest that culturally sensitive, bilingual scald prevention education, targeting Hispanics, is needed to create awareness of the frequency, severity, and danger associated with pediatric scalds.

Randomized clinical study of Hydrofiber dressing with silver or silver sulfadiazine in the management of partial-thickness burns.

This prospective, randomized study compared protocols of care using either AQUACEL Ag Hydrofiber (ConvaTec, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company, Skillman, NJ) dressing with silver (n = 42) or silver sulfadiazine (n = 42) for up to 21 days in the management of partial-thickness burns covering 5% to 40% body surface area (BSA). AQUACEL Ag dressing was associated with less pain and anxiety during dressing changes, less burning and stinging during wear, fewer dressing changes, less nursing time, and fewer procedural medications. Silver sulfadiazine was associated with greater flexibility and ease of movement. Adverse events, including infection, were comparable between treatment groups. The AQUACEL Ag dressing protocol tended to have lower total treatment costs (Dollars 1040 vs. Dollars 1180) and a greater rate of re-epithelialization (73.8% vs 60.0%), resulting in cost-effectiveness per burn healed of Dollars 1,409.06 for AQUACEL Ag dressing and Dollars 1,967.95 for silver sulfadiazine. A protocol of care with AQUACEL(R) Ag provided clinical and economic benefits compared with silver sulfadiazine in patients with partial-thickness burns.

Development of a continuous renal replacement program in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients encounter many obstacles, such as acute renal failure, that increases length of stay as well as hospital cost. Dialysis in these patients is often ineffective thereby prolonging the inevitable and significantly increasing the cost of care. A dialysis program that could improve patient care, potentially improve outcome and be "revenue neutral" would be ideal. METHODS: A continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) program was developed to significantly impact the care of critically ill patients Using the latest CRRT equipment along with an innovative hands-on CRRT training program, a specialized CRRT team was created. Working in conjunction with the hospital business office, new revenue charge codes were created and existing codes were updated. Patients who underwent CRRT had their financial records reviewed for: hospital cost to perform CRRT, total hospital billing to the payer, CRRT revenue 881 (billing units) charged to the payer, total charges and reimbursement for the account, percentage of reimbursement, collected revenue, and payer. RESULTS: From April 2000 to February 2002, 39 critically ill patients underwent CRRT. Initial set-up cost was US$79,622.80 and the cost of CRRT was US$222,323.98. The hospital billed for US$656,090.63 and assuming 100% reimbursement, the potential profit was US$427,678.50. However, loss of revenue, mainly from noncompliance with charge capture resulted in the hospital billing only US$386,794.32 with a total reimbursement of US$165,779.86. The 21 burn patients who underwent CRRT yielded a net profit of US$10,294.12, with the highest reimbursement from workman's compensation and private payers. The overall mortality rate was 59% and 65% for the burn patients; significantly lower than published national averages. CONCLUSIONS: An in-house CRRT program improved patient care by providing dialysis in patients who normally would not tolerate the procedure. Although there was a loss of revenue, CRRT in the burn patients appeared "revenue neutral." Although not specifically studied in this review, based on published data, mortality rates in this population were lower than expected especially in critically ill burn patients.