Reliability and validity of a frailty assessment tool in specialized burn care, a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a predictor of adverse outcomes in elderly patients. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is an often-used frailty assessment instrument. However, the CFS's reliability and validity in patients with burn injuries are unknown. This study aimed to assess the CFS's inter-rater reliability and validity (predictive validity, known group validity and convergent validity) in patients with burn injuries treated to specialized burn care. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 50 years with burn injuries, with a primary admission in 2015-2018, were included. Based on information in the electronic patient files, a research team member scored the CFS retrospectively. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Krippendorff's α. Validity was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Patients with a CFS ≥ 5 were considered frail. RESULTS: In total, 540 patients were included, with a mean age of 65.8 years (SD 11.5) and a Total Body Surface Area (TBSA) burned of 8.5%. The CFS was used to assess frailty in 540 patients and the reliability of the CFS was scored for 212 patients. Mean CFS was 3.4(SD 2.0). Inter-rater reliability was adequate, Krippendorff's α 0.69 (95%CI 0.62-0.74). A positive frailty screening was predictive of a non-home discharge location (OR 3.57, 95%CI 2.16-5.93), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR 1.06-8.77), and a higher mortality rate within 12 months after discharge (OR 4.61, 95%CI 1.99-10.65) after adjustment for age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. Frail patients were more likely to be older (for<70 vs. ≥70 years odds ratio 2.88, 95%CI 1.95-4.25) and their comorbidities were more severe (ASA ≥3 vs 1-2 OR 6.43, 95%CI 4.26-9.70) (known group validity). The CFS was significantly related (rSpearman=0.55) to the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) frailty screening, reflecting a fair-good correlation between the CFS and DSMS frailty screening outcomes. CONCLUSION: The Clinical Frailty scale is reliable and has shown its validity, including its association with adverse outcomes in patients with burn injury admitted to specialized burn care. Early frailty assessment with the CFS must be considered, to optimize early recognition and treatment of frailty.

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).

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.

The feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applicable in acute in-hospital trauma patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Assessing frailty in patients with an acute trauma can be challenging. To provide trustworthy results, tools should be feasible and reliable. This systematic review evaluated existing evidence on the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment tools applied in acute in-hospital trauma patients. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases until February 2020. Studies evaluating the feasibility and/or reliability of a multidimensional frailty assessment tool used to identify frail trauma patients were identified. The feasibility and reliability results and the risk of bias of included studies were assessed. This study was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42020175003). RESULTS: Nineteen studies evaluating 12 frailty assessment tools were included. The risk of bias of the included studies was fair to good. The most frequently evaluated tool was the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (n = 5). All studies evaluated feasibility in terms of the percentage of patients for whom frailty could be assessed; feasibility was high (median, 97%; range, 49-100%). Other feasibility aspects, including time needed for completion, tool availability and costs, availability of instructions, and necessity of training for users, were hardly reported. Reliability was only assessed in three studies, all evaluating the CFS. The interrater reliability varied between 42% and >90% agreement, with a Krippendorff α of 0.27 to 0.41. CONCLUSION: Feasibility of most instruments was generally high. Other aspects were hardly reported. Reliability was only evaluated for the CFS with results varying from poor to good. The reliability of frailty assessment tools for acute trauma patients needs further critical evaluation to conclude whether assessment leads to trustworthy results that are useful in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level II.

Comparison of three different methods to estimate the burden of disease of burn injuries in Western Australia in 2011-2018.

BACKGROUND: Priority setting and resource allocation in health care, surveillance and interventions is based increasingly on burden of disease. Several methods exist to calculate the non-fatal burden of disease of burns expressed in years lived with disability (YLDs). The aim of this study was to assess the burden of disease due to burns in Western Australia 2011-2018 and compare YLD outcomes between three existing methods. METHODS: Data from the Burns Service of Western Australia was used. Three existing methods to assess YLDs were compared: the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) method, a method dedicated to assess injury YLDs (Injury-VIBES), and a method dedicated to assess burns YLDs (INTEGRIS-burns). RESULTS: Incidence data from 2,866 burn patients were used. Non-fatal burden of disease estimates differed substantially between the different methods. Estimates for 2011-2018 ranged between 610 and 1,085 YLDs per 100.000 based on the Injury-VIBES method; between 209 and 324 YLDs based on the INTEGRIS-burns method; and between 89 and 120 YLDs based on the GBD method. YLDs per case were three to nine times higher when the Injury-VIBES method was applied compared to the other methods. Also trends in time differed widely through application of the different methods. There was a strong increase in YLDs over the years when the Injury-VIBES method was applied, a slight increase when the INTEGRIS-burns method was applied and a stable pattern when the GBD method was applied. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the choice for a specific method heavily influences the non-fatal burden of disease expressed in YLDs, both in terms of annual estimates as well as in trends over time. By addressing the methodological limitations evident in previously published calculations of the non-fatal burden of disease, the INTEGRIS-burns seems to present a method to provide the most robust estimates to date, as it is the only method adapted to the nature of burn injuries and their recovery.

Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study).

The clinical effectiveness and scar quality of the randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for treatment of partial thickness burns were previously reported. Enzyme alginogel did not lead to faster wound healing (primary outcome) or less scar formation. In the current study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), costs, and cost-effectiveness of enzyme alginogel compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns were studied. HRQoL was evaluated using the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 1 week before discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months postburn. Costs were studied from a societal perspective (health care and nonhealth-care costs) for a follow-up period of 1 year. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and comparing differences in societal costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 1 year postburn. Forty-one patients were analyzed in the enzyme alginogel group and 48 patients in the SSD group. None of the domains of BSHS-B showed a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups. Also, no statistically significant difference in QALYs was found between enzyme alginogel and SSD (difference -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.09 to 0.03; P = .30). From both the health care and the societal perspective, the difference in costs between enzyme alginogel and SSD was not statistically significant: the difference in health-care costs was €3210 (95% CI, €-1247 to €7667; P = .47) and in societal costs was €3377 (95% CI €-6229 to €12 982; P = .49). The nonsignificant differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years in favor of SSD resulted in a low probability (<25%) that enzyme alginogel is cost-effective compared to SSD. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in quality of life between both treatment groups. Enzyme alginogel is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with SSD in the treatment of partial thickness burns.

Burn intensive care treatment over the last 30 years: Improved survival and shift in case-mix.

PURPOSE: Mortality in burn intensive care unit (ICU) has been decreasing and treatment appears to be changing. The aims of this study: (1) examine outcome in burn patients, (2) examine changes in ICU indication and (3) explore the influence of a changing case-mix. METHODS: Retrospective study in patients admitted to ICU (1987-2016). Four groups were specified: major burns (≥15% TBSA), inhalation injury with small injury (<15% TBSA, inhalation injury), watchful waiting (<15% TBSA, without inhalation injury), tender loving care (patients withheld from treatment). Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the relation between case-mix and outcome. RESULTS: Overall mortality decreased to 7%. Mortality of major burns decreased by 15%. The major burn group decreased by 36%. The inhalation injury and watchful waiting group increased by 9% and 21%. The percentage of ventilated patients increased by 14% in the major burn group. 40% of patients were ventilated in the watchful waiting group. CONCLUSIONS: After correction for case-mix, survival improved, mainly in the major burn group. Case-mix shifted towards inhalation injury and watchful waiting. Growth of the watchful waiting group is not necessarily harmful. However, the increase of mechanical ventilation could be. We suggest raising awareness for risks and consequences of mechanical ventilation.

Epidemiology of injuries, treatment (costs) and outcome in burn patients admitted to a hospital with or without dedicated burn centre (Burn-Pro): protocol for a multicentre prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) referral criteria have been implemented for optimal triaging of burn patients. Admission to a burn centre is indicated for patients with severe burns or with specific characteristics like older age or comorbidities. Patients not meeting these criteria can also be treated in a hospital without burn centre. Limited information is available about the organisation of care and referral of these patients. The aims of this study are to determine the burn injury characteristics, treatment (costs), quality of life and scar quality of burn patients admitted to a hospital without dedicated burn centre. These data will subsequently be compared with data from patients with<10% total bodysurface area (TBSA) burned who are admitted (or secondarily referred) to a burn centre. If admissions were in agreement with the EMSB, referral criteria will also be determined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre, prospective, observational study (cohort study), the following two groups of patients will be followed: 1) all patients (no age limit) admitted with burn-related injuries to a hospital without a dedicated burn centre in the Southwest Netherlands or Brabant Trauma Region and 2) all patients (no age limit) with<10% TBSA burned who are primarily admitted (or secondarily referred) to the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital. Data on the burn injury characteristics (primary outcome), EMSB compliance, treatment, treatment costs and outcome will be collected from the patients' medical files. At 3 weeks and at 3, 6 and 12 months after trauma, patients will be asked to complete the quality of life questionnaire (EuroQoL-5D), and the patient-reported part of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). At those time visits, the coordinating investigator or research assistant will complete the observer-reported part of the POSAS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been exempted by the medical research ethics committee Erasmus MC (Rotterdam, The Netherlands). Each participant will provide written consent to participate and remain encoded during the study. The results of the study are planned to be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6565.

Epidemiology and screening of intentional burns in children in a Dutch burn centre.

International estimates of the incidence of non-accidental burns (NAB) in children admitted to burn centres vary from 1% to 25%. Hardly any data about Dutch figures exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, treatment and outcome of burns due to suspected child abuse in paediatric burns. We described the process of care and outcome, including the accuracy of the SPUTOVAMO screening tool and examined child, burn and treatment characteristics related to suspicions of child abuse or neglect. A retrospective study was conducted in children aged 0-17 years with a primary admission after burn injuries to the burn centre Rotterdam in the period 2009-2013. Data on patient, injury and treatment characteristics were collected, using the Dutch Burn Repository R3. In addition, medical records were reviewed. In 498 paediatric admissions, suspected child abuse or neglect was present in 43 children (9%). 442 screening questionnaires (89%) were completed. In 52 out of 442 questionnaires (12%) the completed SPUTOVAMO had one or more positive signs. Significant independent predictors for suspected child abuse were burns in the genital area or buttocks (OR=3.29; CI: 143-7.55) and a low socio-economic status (OR=2.52; 95%CI: 1.30-4.90). The incidence of suspected child abuse indicating generation of additional support in our population is comparable to studies with a similar design in other countries.

Clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Partial thickness burns are painful, difficult to manage and can have a negative effect on quality of life through scarring, permanent disfigurement and loss of function. The aim of burn treatment in partial thickness burns is to save lives, stimulate wound healing by creating an optimumly moist wound environment, to have debriding and analgesic effects, protect the wound from infection and be convenient for the patient and caregivers. However, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment of partial thickness wounds. Flaminal® and Flamazine® are two standard treatment options that provide the above mentioned properties in burn treatment. Nevertheless, no randomized controlled study has yet compared these two common treatment modalities in partial thickness burns. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns. METHODS/DESIGN: In this two-arm open multi-center randomized controlled trial, 90 patients will be randomized between Flaminal® and Flamazine® and followed for 12 months. The study population will consist of competent or temporarily non-competent (because of sedation and/or intubation) patients, 18 years of age or older, with acute partial thickness burns and a total body surface area (TBSA) of less than 30 %. The main study outcome is time to complete re-epithelialization (greater than 95 %). Secondary outcome measures include need for grafting, wound colonization/infection, number of dressing changes, pain and anxiety, scar formation, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and costs. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the optimal treatment of patients with partial thickness burn wounds and will provide evidence on the (cost-)effectiveness and quality of life of Flaminal® versus Flamazine® in the treatment of partial thickness burns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4486 , registered on 2 April 2014.

Economic burden of burn injuries in the Netherlands: A 3 months follow-up study.

INTRODUCTION: Burn care has rapidly improved in the past decades. However, healthcare innovations can be expensive, demanding careful choices on their implementation. Obtaining knowledge on the extent of the costs of burn injuries is an essential first step for economic evaluations within burn care. The objective of this study was to determine the economic burden of patients with burns admitted to a burn centre and to identify important cost categories until 3 months post-burn. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in the burn centre of Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam, the Netherlands, including all patients with acute burn related injuries from August 2011 until July 2012. Total costs were calculated from a societal perspective, until 3 months post injury. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine whether the mean total costs per patient differed by age, aetiology or percentage total body surface area (TBSA) burned. RESULTS: In our population, with a mean burn size of 8%, mean total costs were €26,540 per patient varying from €742 to €235,557. Most important cost categories were burn centre days (62%), surgical interventions (5%) and work absence (20%). Flame burns were significantly more costly than other types of burns, adult patients were significantly more costly than children and adolescents and a higher percentage TBSA burned also corresponded to significantly higher costs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Mean total costs of burn care in the first 3 months post injury were estimated at €26,540 and depended on age, aetiology and TBSA. Mean total costs in our population probably apply to other high-income countries as well, although we should realise that patients with burn injuries are diverse and represent a broad range of total costs. To reduce costs of burn care, future intervention studies should focus on a timely wound healing, reducing length of stay and enabling an early return to work.

Cost-Effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care in The Netherlands: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with burns, an early accurate diagnosis of burn depth facilitates optimal treatment. Laser Doppler imaging combined with clinical assessment leads to an accurate estimate of burn depth. However, the actual effects of the introduction of laser Doppler imaging on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes, and costs are unknown. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Dutch burn centers, including 202 patients with burns of indeterminate depth. In the standard care group, estimation of burn depth was based on clinical assessment only; in the laser Doppler imaging group, clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging were combined. Primary outcome was time to wound healing. Furthermore, therapeutic decisions and cost-effectiveness were analyzed. RESULTS: Mean time to wound healing was 14.3 days (95 percent CI, 12.8 to 15.9 days) in the laser Doppler imaging group and 15.5 days (95 percent CI, 13.9 to 17.2 days) in the standard care group (p = 0.258). On the day of randomization, clinicians decided significantly more often on operative or nonoperative treatment in the laser Doppler imaging group (p < 0.001), instead of postponing their treatment choice. Analyses in a subgroup of admitted patients requiring surgery showed a significant earlier decision for surgery and a shorter wound healing time in the laser Doppler imaging group. Mean total costs per patient were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laser Doppler imaging improved therapeutic decisions. It resulted in a shorter wound healing time in the subgroup of admitted patients requiring surgery and has the potential for cost savings of €875 per scanned patient.

Costs of burn care: a systematic review.

Burn care is traditionally considered expensive care. However, detailed information about the costs of burn care is scarce despite the increased need for this information and the enhanced focus on healthcare cost control. In this study, economic literature on burn care was systematically reviewed to examine the problem of burn-related costs. Cost or economic evaluation studies on burn care that had been published in international peer-reviewed journals from 1950 to 2012 were identified. The methodology of these articles was critically appraised by two reviewers, and cost results were extracted. A total of 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all of the studies were cost studies (n = 153) with a healthcare perspective (n = 139) from high-income countries (n = 127). Hospital charges were often used as a proxy for costs (n = 44). Three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. The mean total healthcare cost per burn patient in high-income countries was $88,218 (range $704-$717,306; median $44,024). A wide variety of methodological approaches and cost prices was found. We recommend that cost studies and economic evaluations employ a standard approach to improve the quality and harmonization of economic evaluation studies, optimize comparability, and improve insight into burn care costs and efficiency.

Cost study of dermal substitutes and topical negative pressure in the surgical treatment of burns.

BACKGROUND: A recently performed randomised controlled trial investigated the clinical effectiveness of dermal substitutes (DS) and split skin grafts (SSG) in combination with topical negative pressure (TNP) in the surgical treatment of burn wounds. In the current study, medical and non-medical costs were investigated, to comprehensively assess the benefits of this new treatment. METHODS: The primary outcome was mean total costs of the four treatment strategies: SSG with or without DS, and with or without TNP. Costs were studied from a societal perspective. Findings were evaluated in light of the clinical effects on scar elasticity. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included. Twelve months post-operatively, highest elasticity was measured in scars treated with DS and TNP (p=0.027). The initial cost price of treatment with DS and TNP was €2912 compared to treatment with SSG alone €1703 (p<0.001). However, mean total costs per patient did not differ significantly between groups (range €29097-€43774). DISCUSSION: Costs of the interventional treatment contributed maximal 7% to the total costs and total costs varied widely within and between groups, but were not significantly different. Therefore, in the selection of the most optimal type of surgical intervention, cost considerations should not play an important role.

Patient reported facial scar assessment: directions for the professional.

BACKGROUND: The face is central to our identity and provides our most expressive means of communication. Currently, the role of facial scarring in relation to self-esteem is unclear and the value of self-reported scar assessment is insufficiently understood. The aim of this study was twofold: (1) to assess the extent of agreement between patients' ratings and observers' ratings of facial scar characteristics; and (2) to examine if patients' and observers' scar characteristics ratings, or the differences, are associated with the patients' self-esteem. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted including patients with facial burns. Patients completed the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 3 months post-burn. RESULTS: Ninety-four subjects were included, 76 (81%) men and mean percentage TBSA burned was 12.4 (SD 10.4; range 1-50). Subject's and observer's assessment were significantly positively correlated and were identical in 53% of the cases. Subjects' assessments and discrepancy scores on the scar characteristic surface roughness were associated with self-esteem in multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the patients scored the quality of facial scars in a similar way as the professionals. Furthermore, facial scarring appeared only moderately associated with self-esteem. However, our study suggests that using both patients' and professionals' scar assessments provides more useful information regarding the patients' well-being relative to focussing on the separate assessments only. In particular a discrepancy between the patients' and professionals' view on surface roughness might be an early indication of psychological difficulties and a call for further clinical attention.

Cost-effectiveness of laser Doppler imaging in burn care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Early accurate assessment of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns. The method most used to determine burn depth is clinical assessment, which is the least expensive, but not the most accurate.Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique with which a more accurate (>95%) estimate of burn depth can be made by measuring the dermal perfusion. The actual effect on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and the costs of the introduction of this device, however, are unknown. Before we decide to implement LDI in Dutch burn care, a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI is necessary. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter randomised controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centres: Beverwijk, Groningen and Rotterdam. All patients treated as outpatient or admitted to a burn centre within 5 days post burn, with burns of indeterminate depth (burns not obviously superficial or full thickness) and a total body surface area burned of ≤ 20% are eligible. A total of 200 patients will be included. Burn depth will be diagnosed by both clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging between 2-5 days post burn in all patients. Subsequently, patients are randomly divided in two groups: 'new diagnostic strategy' versus 'current diagnostic strategy'. The results of the LDI-scan will only be provided to the treating clinician in the 'new diagnostic strategy' group. The main endpoint is the effect of LDI on wound healing time.In addition we measure: a) the effect of LDI on other patient outcomes (quality of life, scar quality), b) the effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, and c) the effect of LDI on total (medical and non-medical) costs and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to our current knowledge on the use of LDI in burn care and will provide evidence on its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01489540.

Parent-reported health outcomes in infants/toddlers: measurement properties and clinical validity of the ITQOL-SF47.

PURPOSE: To derive and evaluate a shorter infant/toddler quality of life questionnaire (ITQOL) for use in clinical care. METHODS: Stepwise regression, factor analysis, and item-scaling principles were used to derive and guide item selection using data from a large general sample in the Netherlands (n = 5,211) and a "wheezing illness" sample (n = 138). Item internal consistency, discriminant validity, and floor and ceiling effects were evaluated using a general Dutch sample (Salland Region n = 410) and two clinical samples: Functional abdominal pain (FAP, n = 81) and Burn (n = 194). Reliabilities were estimated using Cronbach's alpha. Relative precision (RP), the ability to distinguish between clinical subgroups, was computed by comparing the proportion of variance explained by the short-form scales versus respective full-length scales. RESULTS: The ITQOL was reduced from 97 to 47 items. Median alpha coefficients were 0.77 Salland sample, 0.76 (FAP), and 0.84 (Burn). Ninety-one to 100 % scaling successes for item discriminant validity were observed for 21 of 24 tests (8 scales, 3 samples). Floor effects were not observed; some ceiling effects were detected. RP estimates in the Salland sample ranged from 2.40 (physical abilities) to 0.58 (temperament and moods). RP estimates in the FAP sample were 0.85 (bodily pain), 1.36 (temperament and moods) and 1.62 (parental-impact emotional) and for Burn, 1.51 (temperament and moods) and 0.59 (general health perceptions). CONCLUSION: The ITQOL-SF47 is reliable and valid and exceeds item-level scaling criteria.

[Determining burn depth: clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging]. / Bepaling van brandwondendiepte: klinische inschatting en laser-doppler-imaging.

Early accurate determination of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns. The method most used to determine burn depth is clinical assessment. This is a cheap method, but not the most accurate. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique with which a more accurate (>95%) estimate of burn depth can be made by measuring the dermal perfusion. It is hypothesised that the introduction of LDI will lead to quicker decisions as to whether or not to operate, possibly leading to a shorter length of hospital stay and lower medical costs. To test this hypothesis, a multicentre randomized controlled trial is presently being conducted in the Dutch burn centres.

Cost estimation of injury-related hospital admissions in 10 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Injuries are a major cause of total health care costs. Cost estimations may help identify injuries and high risk-groups to be considered for potential intervention. METHODS: Hospital discharge registers of 10 European countries were used to estimate injury incidence. Consensus was reached between the participating countries about methodology, definition, classification, cost measurements, and valuation to maximize cross-national comparability of outcomes. The data of the countries were also used to give an estimate of the costs per capita by age, sex, type of injury, and external cause in Europe. RESULTS: Large international differences were observed in injury incidence and associated costs related to hospital admissions, with relatively high costs per capita for Austria, followed by Denmark and Norway. In Greece, Italy, Ireland, and Wales, intermediate costs per capita were found, but these costs were relatively low for Spain, England, and the Netherlands. The patterns of costs by age, sex, injury type, and external cause are quite similar between the countries. For all countries, costs per capita increase exponentially in older age groups (age > or =65 years), due to the combined effect of high incidence and high costs per patient. The elderly females account for almost triple costs compared with same age males. Young children and male adolescents are also high-cost groups. Highest costs were found for hip fractures, fractures of the knee/lower leg, superficial injuries, skull-brain injuries, and spinal cord injuries. Home and leisure injuries (including sport injuries) and occupational injuries combined make a major contribution (86%) to the hospital costs of injury. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients aged 65 years and older, especially women, consume a disproportionate share of hospital resources for trauma care, mainly caused by hip fractures and fractures of the knee/lower leg, which indicates the importance of prevention and investing in trauma care for this specific patient group.