Multicenter assessment of burn team injury prevention knowledge.

Engaging burn professionals to utilize "teachable moments" and provide accurate fire safety and burn prevention (FSBP) education is essential in reducing injury incidence. Minimal data is available regarding burn clinicians' evidence-based FSBP knowledge. A committee of prevention professionals developed, pilot-tested, and distributed a 52-question online survey assessing six major categories: demographical information (n = 7); FSBP knowledge (n = 24); home FSBP practices (n = 6); burn center FSBP education (n = 7); self-assessed competence and confidence in providing FSBP education (n = 2); and improving ABA reach (n = 6). Responses with <50% completion of FSBP knowledge section were excluded. Total group's (TG) mean FSBP score of 61.5% was used to define and compare underperformers (UP). After excluding 36 incomplete responses, test scores ranged: TG (n = 427) 21-88% and UP (n = 183) 21-58%. Ten FSBP knowledge questions covering seven topics were incorrectly answered by >50% of TG. ANOVA showed self-reported competence and confidence in providing FSBP education were not good predictors of FSBP scores, but staff with <2 years experience scored lower. Over 90% of TG wants FSBP fact sheets for patient education. Burn professionals have a responsibility to educate patients, families, and communities on FSBP. Team members report competence and confidence in their ability to provide FSBP education. However, this multicenter survey demonstrates the need for professional training on best practices in injury prevention, specifically targeting knowledge gaps on: smoke alarms, fire-safe cigarettes, children's sleepwear, burn/fire epidemiology, fireworks, bathing/scald injuries, and residential sprinklers. Based on these findings, FSBP educational materials will be created.

Disaster planning: the basics of creating a burn mass casualty disaster plan for a burn center.

In 2005, the American Burn Association published burn disaster guidelines. This work recognized that local and state assets are the most important resources in the initial 24- to 48-hour management of a burn disaster. Historical experiences suggest there is ample opportunity to improve local and state preparedness for a major burn disaster. This review will focus on the basics of developing a burn surge disaster plan for a mass casualty event. In the event of a disaster, burn centers must recognize their place in the context of local and state disaster plan activation. Planning for a burn center takes on three forms; institutional/intrafacility, interfacility/intrastate, and interstate/regional. Priorities for a burn disaster plan include: coordination, communication, triage, plan activation (trigger point), surge, and regional capacity. Capacity and capability of the plan should be modeled and exercised to determine limitations and identify breaking points. When there is more than one burn center in a given state or jurisdiction, close coordination and communication between the burn centers are essential for a successful response. Burn surge mass casualty planning at the facility and specialty planning levels, including a state burn surge disaster plan, must have interface points with governmental plans. Local, state, and federal governmental agencies have key roles and responsibilities in a burn mass casualty disaster. This work will include a framework and critical concepts any burn disaster planning effort should consider when developing future plans.