Characterizing End-of-Life Care after Geriatric Burns at a Verified Level I Burn Center.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EoL) care after geriatric burns (geri-burns) is understudied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the practices of burn surgeons for initiating EoL discussions and the impact of decisions made on the courses of geri-burn patients who died after injury. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined all subjects ≥65 years who died on our Level I burn service from April 1, 2009, to December 31, 2014. Measurements obtained were timing of first EoL discussion (EARLY <24 hours post-admission; LATE ≥24 hours post-admission), decisions made, age, total body surface area burned, and calculated probability of death at admission. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 57 subjects, of whom 54 had at least one documented EoL care discussion between a burn physician and the patient/surrogate. No differences were seen between groups for the likelihood of an immediate decision for comfort care after the first discussion (p = 0.73) or the mean number of total discussions (p = 0.07). EARLY group subjects (n = 38) had significantly greater magnitudes of injury (p = 0.002), calculated probabilities of death at admission (p ≤ 0.001), shorter times to death (p ≤ 0.001), and fewer trips to the operating theater for burn excision and skin grafting (p ≤ 0.001) than LATE subjects (n = 16). LATE subjects' first discussion occurred at a mean of 9.3 ± 10.0 days. DISCUSSION: The vast majority of geri-burn deaths on our burn service occur after a discussion about EoL care. The timing of these discussions is driven by magnitude of injury, and it does not lead to higher proportions of an immediate decision for comfort care. The presence and timing of EoL discussions bears further study as a quality metric for geri-burn EoL care.

Multicenter external validation of the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score: A study by the Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly (PALLIATE) consortium.

BACKGROUND: A prognostic tool for geriatric mortality after injury called the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), where GTOS = [age] + [ISS × 2.5] + [22 if transfused any PRBCs by 24 hours after admission], was previously developed based on 13 years of data from geriatric trauma patients admitted to Parkland Hospital. We sought to validate this model. METHODS: Four Level I centers identified subjects who are 65 years or older for the period of the original study. The GTOS model was first specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (ISS × 2.5) + 22 (if given PRBC by 24 hours)] developed from the Parkland sample and then used as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model estimating probability of mortality in the validation sample, accounting for site as a random effect. We estimated the misclassification (error) rate, Brier score, Tjur R, and the area under the curve in evaluating the predictive performance of the GTOS model. RESULTS: The original Parkland sample (n = 3,841) had a mean (SD) age of 76.6 (8.1) years, mean (SD) ISS of 12.4 (9.9), mortality of 10.8%, and 11.9% receiving PRBCs at 24 hours. The validation sample (n = 18,282) had a mean (SD) age of 77.0 (8.1) years, mean (SD) ISS of 12.3 (10.6), mortality of 11.0%, and 14.1% receiving PRBCs at 24 hours. Fitting the GTOS model to the validation sample revealed that the parameter estimates from the validation sample were similar to those of fitting it to the Parkland sample with highly overlapping 95% confidence limits. The misclassification (error) rate for the GTOS logistic model applied to the validation sample was 9.97%, similar to that of the Parkland sample (9.79%). Brier score, Tjur R, and the area under the curve for the GTOS logistic model when applied to the validation sample were 0.07, 0.25, and 0.86, respectively, compared with 0.08, 0.20, and 0.82, respectively, for the Parkland sample. CONCLUSION: With the use of the data available at 24 hours after injury, the GTOS accurately predicts in-hospital mortality for the injured elderly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Combat casualty hand burns: evaluating impairment and disability during recovery.

This study evaluated the use of the American Medical Association (AMA) impairment guides and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire in U.S. military casualties recovering from burn injury to the hand. Study sample included patients with burns to at least one hand and complete evaluations of impairment and disability upon discharge from the hospital and at a follow-up visit less than four months later. AMA and DASH scores were calculated for each visit and standardized response means (SRMs) were calculated to indicate responsiveness. Correlation between impairment and disability was assessed at discharge and follow-up and scores were examined for ability to discriminate between casualties returned to duty (RTD) and casualties not returned to duty (N-RTD). Both outcome instruments revealed a statistically significant change in scores between visits (p<0.001) with corresponding SRM indexes greater than 0.8 (large effect). There was a moderate correlation (r=0.50) between impairment and disability at discharge and a moderately high correlation (r=0.74) at follow-up. Both AMA and DASH scores clearly discriminated between casualties RTD (AMA 10+/-10 and DASH 12+/-12) and casualties N-RTD (AMA 39+/-19 and DASH 41+/-17) with improved accuracy at follow-up visit. The AMA and DASH can provide a comprehensive assessment of impairment and disability and may be used to detect changes in patient health status over time while clearly discriminating between RTD and N-RTD in combat casualties recovering from burn injury to the hand(s).

A review of compression glove modifications to enhance functional grip: a case series.

A common complaint among patients with burns is their inability to grasp items while wearing compression gloves. Recent technological innovations permit the addition of grip-enhancing material to garment fabric. The purpose of this case series was to describe the course of development of compression gloves with enhanced grip modifications. Five different types of grip modifications were made during a period of 18 months. Five subjects who were prescribed compression gloves tested each type of glove. The gloves were fabricated with grip-enhancing material on the palmar surface in five ways: 1) rectangular rubber tabs; 2) honeycomb pattern silicone; 3) wave-like pattern silicone; 4) line pattern silicone beads; 5) line pattern silicone beads embedded into the fabric. Each glove was evaluated on a three-point Likert scale (0 = poor, 1 = moderate, 2 = good) for grip-enhancing qualities and durability. All five subjects reported similar experiences with each glove type: 1) the rectangular rubber tabs demonstrated poor grip and moderate durability; 2) the honeycomb pattern provided good grip but poor durability; 3) the wave pattern had good grip and moderate durability; 4) the silicone beads adhered to the fabric had moderate grip but poor durability; 5) the silicone beads embedded into the fabric had moderate grip and good durability. The wave pattern provided the best gripping capability and silicone embedded into the fabric demonstrated the best durability. A wave-like pattern silicone material embedded into the fabric seems to provide the best combination of grip and durability to enhance activities of daily living performance.