The impact of different co-morbidities on clinical outcomes and resource utilization in critically ill burn and surgical patients: A population-based analysis of social determinants of health.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to establish the significance of social determinants of health and prevalent co-morbidities on multiple indicators for quality of care in patients admitted to the Burn and Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of population group data for patients admitted at the Burn and Surgical ICU from January 1, 2016, to November 18, 2019. The primary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality, 30-day readmission, and hospital charges. Pearson's chi-square test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables were used to compare population health groups. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 487 burn and 510 surgical patients. When comparing ICU patients, we observed significantly higher mean hospital charges and length of stay (LOS) in BICU v. SICU patients with a history of mental health ($93,259.40 v. $50,503.36, p = 0.013 and 16.28 v. 9.16 days, p = 0.0085), end-stage-renal-disease (ESRD) ($653,871.05 v. $75,746.35, p = 0.0047 and 96.15 v. 17.53 days, p = 0.0104), sepsis ($267,979.60 v. $99,154.41, p = <0.001 and 39.1 v. 18.42 days, p = 0.0043), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) ($757,740.50 v. $117,816.40, p = <0.001 and 93.11 v. 20.21 days, p = 0.002). Also, higher mortality was observed in burn patients with ESRD, ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), sepsis, VTE, and diabetes mellitus. 30-day-readmissions were greater among burn patients with a history of mental health, drug dependence, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new insights into the variability of outcomes between burn patients treated in different critical care settings, underlining the influence of comorbidities on these outcomes. By comparing burn patients in the BICU with those in the SICU, we aim to highlight how differences in patient backgrounds, including the quality of care received, contribute to these outcomes. This comparison underscores the need for tailored healthcare strategies that consider the unique challenges faced by each patient group, aiming to mitigate disparities in health outcomes and healthcare spending. Further research to develop relevant and timely interventions that can improve these outcomes.

The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on the 2022 Plastic Surgery Match.

BACKGROUND: In 2022, the plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) match faced unprecedented system-wide transitions that have redefined conventional measures of applicant success. This challenges the equitable assessment of student competitiveness and diversity in the field. METHODS: A survey of demography, application content, and 2022 match outcomes was distributed to applicants to a single PRS residency program. Comparative statistics and regression models were performed to assess the predictive value of factors in match success and quality. RESULTS: A total of 151 respondents (response rate 49.7%) were analyzed. Although step 1 and step 2 CK scores were significantly higher among matched applicants, neither examination predicted match success. Most respondents (52.3%) were women, although gender was also not significantly associated with match success. Underrepresented in medicine applicants made up 19.2% of responses and 16.7% of matches, and the plurality of respondents (22.5%) were raised with a household income ≥$300,000. Both Black race and household income ≤$100,000 were associated with lower odds of scoring above a 240 on either step 1 or step 2 CK (Black: OR, 0.03 and 0.06; P < 0.05 and P < 0.001; income: OR, 0.07-0.47 and 0.1 to 0.8, among income subgroups), receiving interview offers (OR, -9.4; P < 0.05; OR, -11.0 to -5.4), and matching into PRS (OR, 0.2; P < 0.05; OR, 0.2 to 0.5), compared with White and high-income applicants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inequities in the match process disadvantage underrepresented in medicine candidates and those from lower household incomes. As the residency match continues to evolve, programs must understand and mitigate the impacts of bias in various application components.

Public perception of household risks for pediatric burn injuries and assessment of management readiness.

INTRODUCTION: Children are uniquely vulnerable to injury because of near-complete dependence on caregivers. Unintentional injury is leading cause of death in children under the age of 14. Burns are one of the leading causes of accidental and preventable household injuries, with scald burns most common in younger children and flame burns in older ones. Education is a key tool to address burn prevention, but unfortunately these injuries persist. Critically, there is a paucity of literature investigating adult comprehension with respect to potential risks of household burns. To date, no study has been performed to assess management readiness for these types of injuries without seeking medical care. METHODS: Qualtrics™ surveys were distributed to laypersons via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Demographics were self-reported. The survey was divided into two parts, management knowledge, and risk identification. The management part involved a photograph of a first-degree pediatric burn injury and required identification of the degree of injury and three potential initial managements. The risk-identification section required correctly identifying the most common mechanisms of burn injury for different age groups followed by general identification of 20 household burn risks. Survey responses were analyzed using two-tailed Student's t-tests and chi-square analyses, univariate and multivariate analysis, and linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 467 respondents, the mean age was 36.57 years, and was 59.7% (279) male. Only 3.2% of respondents were able to correctly identify all 20 potential risks listed in our survey. Additionally, only 4.5% of respondents correctly identified all three appropriate initial management options (cool water, sterile gauze, and over-the-counter analgesics) without misidentifying incorrect options. However, 56.1% of respondents were able to select at least one correct management option. For image-based injury classification, the most common response was incorrectly second-degree with 216 responses (42.2%) and the second-most common response was correctly first-degree with 146 responses (31.3%). Most respondents claimed they would not seek medical attention for the injury presented in the photograph (77.7%). When comparing the responses of individuals with children to those without, there were no statistically significant differences in ability to assess household risks for pediatric burns. For the entire population of respondents, the mean score for correctly identifying risks was 38%. CONCLUSION: This study revealed a significant gap in public awareness of household risks for pediatric burns. Furthermore, while most individuals would not seek medical care for a first-degree pediatric burn injury, they were readily available to identify proper initial management methods. This gap in knowledge and understanding of household pediatric burn injuries should be addressed with increased burn injury prevention education initiatives and more parental counseling opportunities.