Risk factors associated with unintentional house fire incidents, injuries and deaths in high-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the distinguishing risk factors associated with unintentional house fire incidents, injuries and deaths. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A range of bibliographical databases and grey literature were searched from their earliest records to January 2016. To ensure the magnitude of risk could be quantified, only those study types which contained a control group, and undertook appropriate statistical analyses were included. A best evidence synthesis was conducted instead of a meta-analysis due to study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eleven studies investigating a variety of risk factors and outcomes were identified. Studies ranged from medium to low quality with no high quality studies identified. Characteristics commonly associated with increased risk of house fire incidents, injuries and fatalities included: higher numbers of residents, male, children under the age of 5 years, non-working households, smoking, low income, non-privately owned properties, apartments and buildings in poor condition. Several risk factors were only associated with one outcome (eg, living alone was only associated with increased risk of injurious fires), and households with older residents were at increased risk of injurious fires, but significantly less likely to experience a house fire in the first place. CONCLUSIONS: This best evidence synthesis indicates that several resident and property characteristics are associated with risk of experiencing house fire incidents, injuries or death. These findings should be considered by the Fire and Rescue Services and others with a role in fire prevention. Future research should adopt robust, standardised study designs to permit meta-analyses and enable stronger conclusions to be drawn.

Health benefits and costs of filtration interventions that reduce indoor exposure to PM2.5 during wildfires.

Increases in hospital admissions and deaths are associated with increases in outdoor air particles during wildfires. This analysis estimates the health benefits expected if interventions had improved particle filtration in homes in Southern California during a 10-day period of wildfire smoke exposure. Economic benefits and intervention costs are also estimated. The six interventions implemented in all affected houses are projected to prevent 11% to 63% of the hospital admissions and 7% to 39% of the deaths attributable to wildfire particles. The fraction of the population with an admission attributable to wildfire smoke is small, thus, the costs of interventions in all homes far exceeds the economic benefits of reduced hospital admissions. However, the estimated economic value of the prevented deaths exceed or far exceed intervention costs for interventions that do not use portable air cleaners. For the interventions with portable air cleaner use, mortality-related economic benefits exceed intervention costs as long as the cost of the air cleaners, which have a multi-year life, are not attributed to the short wildfire period. Cost effectiveness is improved by intervening only in the homes of the elderly who experience most of the health effects of particles from wildfires.

Inpatient costs of fire-related injuries in Finland.

The aim of this study was to approximate the direct health care costs of fire-related injuries in inpatient care in Finland. Using the PERFECT costing method, cost data from both Finnish burn centres were linked to the fire-related injury patient data from the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register (FHDR, 2001-2009). Additionally, a sample of 168 patients from the Helsinki Burn Centre was linked to the FHDR to examine the relation of %TBSA. Burn was involved in approximately 77% of the cases, the remainder consisting mainly of combustion gas poisonings. Burns were generally much more expensive to treat. Fire-related injuries incurred EUR 6.2 million per year in inpatient costs for the whole country. Mean cost per burn patient was EUR 25,000 and for combustion gas poisoning it was EUR 3600. As expected there was a strong relationship between %TBSA and cost. Older age had a strong effect on costs. The most severe injuries cost over EUR 400,000 to treat. Approximately 7-8% of the most expensive cases constitute 50% of the total costs. Successful prevention of extreme cases would yield considerable savings in relation to total annual inpatient care costs. However, a cost-benefit analysis would be needed.

The utility of bronchoscopy after inhalation injury complicated by pneumonia in burn patients: results from the National Burn Repository.

There are no guidelines to determine when bronchoscopy is appropriate in patients with inhalation injury complicated by pneumonia. We reviewed the National Burn Repository from 1998 to 2007 to determine if there is any difference in outcome in burn patients with inhalation injury and pneumonia who did and did not undergo bronchoscopy. Three hundred fifty-five patients with pneumonia did not undergo bronchoscopy, 173 patients underwent one bronchoscopy, and 96 patients underwent more than one bronchoscopy. Patients with a 30 to 59% surface area burn and pneumonia who underwent bronchoscopy had a decreased duration of mechanical ventilation compared with those who did not (21 days, 95% CI: 19-23 days vs 28 days, 95% CI: 25-31 days, P=.0001). When compared with patients who did not undergo bronchoscopy, patients having a single bronchoscopy had a significantly shorter length of intensive care unit stay and hospital stay (35+/-3 vs 39+/-2, P=.04, and 45+/-3 vs 49+/-2, P=.009). The hospital charges were on average much higher in those patients who did not undergo bronchoscopy, compared with those who did ($473,654+/-44,944 vs $370,572+/-36,602, P=.12). When compared with patients who did not undergo bronchoscopy, patients who did have one or more bronchoscopies showed a reduced risk of death by 18% (OR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.53-1.27, P=.37). Patients with inhalation injury complicated by pneumonia seem to benefit from bronchoscopy. This benefit can be seen in a decreased duration of mechanical ventilation, decreased length of intensive care unit stay, and decreased overall hospital cost. In addition, there was a trend toward an improvement in mortality. The aggressive use of bronchoscopy after inhalation injury may be justified.

A review of the specialties that care for inpatient burns and smoke inhalation in the English counties of Lancashire and South Cumbria.

Prevention is by far the best strategy to minimise the burden of burns and smoke inhalation injuries on public health. However, it is inevitable that some injuries will occur despite the best attempts to prevent them. We must, therefore, optimise treatment in order to restore individuals to the best possible condition. Previous experience has shown that a wide range of specialties, many of which are untrained in burn care medicine, are involved in the care of inpatient burns/smoke inhalation victims in the UK. In light of this, a local review of which specialties care for such injuries was conducted for the population of Lancashire and South Cumbria in the north-west of England. Using population-based health authority data from 1997 to 1999, all Hospital Episodes relating to a primary diagnosis of burns or smoke inhalation were ascertained. The results showed that 41% of all burns episodes were treated by specialties other than burns/plastics. The short lengths of stay in non-plastics/burns specialties suggest that relatively minor injuries are being admitted to these units. Analysis of smoke inhalation injuries showed admission to various different specialties. Admission to burn services ensures that key specialties are available for the care of complex burn injuries. These multidisciplinary teams include burn nurses, burn surgeons and burn anaesthetists/intensivists. From the data available, it was not possible to assess the appropriateness of admission of burns and smoke inhalation injuries to the various branches of medicine. In order to assess appropriateness, we need information on severity of injury and outcome of treatment in each specialty. Further research in this area is required since it is concerning that many burns/smoke inhalation injuries are being treated by specialties with no formal training in burn care medicine. This may have major implications for service planning alongside changes in referral patterns.