Preliminary Exploration of Long-Term Patient Outcomes After Tracheostomy in Burns: A Burn Model System Study.

INTRODUCTION: Upper airway management is crucial to burn care. Endotracheal intubation is often performed in the setting of inhalation injury, burns of the face and neck, or large burns requiring significant resuscitation. Tracheostomy may be necessary in patients requiring prolonged ventilatory support. This study compares long-term, patient-reported outcomes in burn patients with and without tracheostomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Burn Model System Database, collected from 2013 to 2020, were analyzed. Demographic and clinical data were compared between those with and without tracheostomy. The following patient-reported outcomes, collected at 6-, 12-, and 24-mo follow-up, were analyzed: Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), Satisfaction with Life, Community Integration Questionnaire, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-Item Profile Measure, employment status, and days to return to work. Regression models and propensity-matched analyses were used to assess the associations between tracheostomy and each outcome. RESULTS: Of 714 patients included in this study, 5.5% received a tracheostomy. Mixed model regression analyses demonstrated that only VR-12 Physical Component Summary scores at 24-mo follow-up were significantly worse among those requiring tracheostomy. Tracheostomy was not associated with VR-12 Mental Component Summary, Satisfaction with Life, Community Integration Questionnaire, or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-Item Profile Measure scores. Likewise, tracheostomy was not found to be independently associated with employment status or days to return to work. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary exploration suggests that physical and psychosocial recovery, as well as the ability to regain employment, are no worse in burn patients requiring tracheostomy. Future investigations of larger scale are still needed to assess center- and provider-level influences, as well as the influences of various hallmarks of injury severity. Nonetheless, this work should better inform goals of care discussions with patients and families regarding the use of tracheostomy in burn injury.

American Burn Association (ABA) Burn Care Quality Platform (BCQP) and Large Data Set Analysis Considerations: A Practical Guide to Investigating Clinical Questions in Burns via Large Data Sets.

The Burn Care Quality Platform (BCQP) consolidates data previously collected from the National Burn Repository and the Burn Quality Improvement Program into a single registry. Its data elements and their associated definitions are tailored to create consistency across other national trauma registries, namely the National Trauma Data Bank implemented by the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP). The BCQP now includes 103 participating burn centers and has captured data from 375,000 total patients as of 2021. With 12,000 patients entered under the current data dictionary, the BCQP represents the largest registry of its kind. On behalf of the American Burn Association Research Committee, the aim of this whitepaper is to provide a succinct overview of the BCQP, showcasing its unique features, strengths, limitations, and relevant statistical considerations. This whitepaper will highlight the resources available to the burn research community and offer insight on proper study design when preparing to conduct a large data set investigation for burn care. All recommendations herein were formulated through the consensus of a multidisciplinary committee and based on the available scientific evidence.

Association Between Health Insurance and Outcomes After Traumatic Brain Injury: A National ACS-TQP-PUF Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: According to the US Census Bureau, roughly 8.6% of the population lacks health care coverage. Increasing evidence suggests that insurance status plays a role in outcomes after trauma. However, its role in the setting of traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains poorly understood. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Programs Participant Use Files were queried from 2017 to 2019. All patients with isolated TBI were identified. Isolated TBI was defined as: 1) Head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) > 3 and 2) AIS <3 in all other anatomical regions. Patients dead on arrival, with Head AIS = 6, or missing key data were excluded. Demographic and clinical information was compared between those with and without insurance. Multivariate regressions were used to assess associations between insurance status and TBI outcomes (inhospital mortality, discharge to facility, total ventilator days, Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), and hospital LOS). RESULTS: In total, 199,556 patients met inclusion criteria; 18,957 (9.5%) were uninsured. Compared to the insured, uninsured TBI patients were younger with a greater proportion of males. Uninsured patients were less severely injured and less comorbid. Uninsured patients had shorter unadjusted LOS in the ICU and hospital. Yet, uninsured patients experienced greater unadjusted inhospital mortality (12.7% versus 8.4%, P < 0.001). When controlling for covariates, lack of insurance was significantly associated with increased likelihood of mortality (OR 1.62; P < 0.001). This effect was most noticeable in patients with Head AIS = 4 (OR 1.55; P < 0.001) and Head AIS = 5 (OR 1.80; P < 0.001). Lack of insurance was also significantly associated with decreased likelihood of discharge to facility (OR 0.38), decreased ICU LOS (Coeff. -0.61), and decreased hospital LOS (Coeff. -0.82; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that insurance status is independently associated with outcome disparities after isolated TBI. Despite the Affordable Care Act (ACA) reform, lack of insurance appears significantly associated with inhospital mortality, decreased likelihood of discharge to facility, and decreased time spent in the ICU and hospital.

The Effect of Distance to Treatment Center on Long-Term Outcomes of Burn Patients.

Geospatial proximity to American Burn Association (ABA)-verified burn centers or self-designated burn care facilities varies across the country. This study evaluates the effect of distance to treatment center on long-term, patient-reported outcomes. Data from the Burn Model System (BMS) National Longitudinal Database were analyzed. Demographic and clinical data were compared between three cohorts stratified by distance to BMS center (<20, 20-49.9, ≥50 miles). Distance to BMS center was calculated as driving distance between discharge and BMS center ZIP code centroids. The following patient-reported outcomes, collected at 12-months follow-up, were examined: Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), Satisfaction with Life (SWL) scale, employment status, and days to return to work. Mixed model regression analyses were used to examine the associations between distance to BMS center and each outcome, controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Of 726 patients included in this study, 26.3% and 28.1% were <20 and between 20 and 49.9 miles to a BMS center, respectively; 46.6% were ≥50 miles to a BMS center. Greater distance was associated with white/non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, preinjury employment, flame injury, and larger burn size (P < .001). Regression analyses did not identify significant associations between distance to BMS center and any patient-reported outcomes. This study suggests that patients treated at BMS centers have similar long-term, patient-reported outcomes of physical and psychosocial function, as well as employment, despite centralization of burn care and rehabilitation services. Given a steady decline in the incidence of burn injury, continued concentration of key resources is logical and safe.