Efficacy of Smartphone Active and Passive Virtual Reality Distraction vs Standard Care on Burn Pain Among Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether smartphone-based virtual reality (VR) games are effective in reducing pain among pediatric patients in real-world burn clinics. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a smartphone VR game on dressing pain among pediatric patients with burns. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included children aged 6 to 17 years who seen in the outpatient clinic of a large American Burn Association-verified pediatric burn center and level I pediatric trauma center between December 30, 2016, and January 23, 2019. Speaking English as their primary language was an inclusion criterion. Intention-to-treat data analyses were conducted from December 2019 to March 2020. Interventions: Active VR participants played a VR game; passive VR participants were immersed in the same VR environment without interactions. Both groups were compared with a standard care group. One researcher administered VR and observed pain while another researcher administered a posttrial survey that measured the child's perceived pain and VR experience. Nurses were asked to report the clinical utility. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients self-reported pain using a visual analog scale (VAS; range, 0-100). A researcher observed patient pain based on the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability-Revised (FLACC-R) scale. Nurses were asked to report VR helpfulness (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate more helpful) and ease of use (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate easier to use). Results: A total of 90 children (45 [50%] girls, mean age, 11.3 years [95% CI, 10.6-12.0 years]; 51 [57%] White children) participated. Most children had second-degree burns (81 [90%]). Participants in the active VR group had significantly lower reported overall pain (VAS score, 24.9 [95% CI, 12.2-37.6]) compared with participants in the standard care control group (VAS score, 47.1 [95% CI, 32.1-62.2]; P = .02). The active VR group also had a lower worst pain score (VAS score, 27.4 [95% CI, 14.7-40.1]) than both the passive VR group (VAS score, 47.9 [95% CI, 31.8-63.9]; P = .04) and the standard care group (VAS score, 48.8 [95% CI, 31.1-64.4]; P = .03). Simulator sickness scores (range, 0-60; lower scores indicate less sickness) were similar for active VR (19.3 [95% CI, 17.5-21.1]) and passive VR groups (19.5 [95% CI, 17.6-21.5]). Nurses also reported that the VR games could be easily implemented in clinics (helpfulness, active VR: 84.2; 95% CI, 74.5-93.8; passive VR: 76.9; 95% CI, 65.2-88.7; ease of use, active VR: 94.8, 95% CI, 91.8-97.8; passive VR: 96.0, 95% CI, 92.9-99.1). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a smartphone VR game was effective in reducing patient self-reported pain during burn dressing changes, suggesting that VR may be an effective method for managing pediatric burn pain. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04544631.

Epidemiology and trend of US pediatric burn hospitalizations, 2003-2016.

BACKGROUND: Thermal injury is a leading cause of unintentional pediatric trauma morbidity and mortality. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the 2003-2016 Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) included children <18 years old with a burn principal diagnosis. The objectives were to describe the trend of US pediatric burn hospital admissions and the patient and hospital characteristics of admitted children in 2016. The trends (2003-2012) and (2012-2016) were evaluated separately due to the 2015 implementation of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). RESULTS: The population rate of pediatric burn admissions decreased by 4.6% from 2003 to 2012, but the proportion of admissions to hospitals with burn pediatric patient volumes≥100 increased by 63.9%. The overall mortality rate of hospitalized burn patients decreased by 48.1%. Median length of stay increased slightly for patients with a burn ≥20% total body surface area (TBSA) but decreased for patients with TBSA burn <20%. From 2012 to 2016, the population rate decreased by 13.4%. In 2016, an estimated 8160 children were admitted with a burn principal diagnosis, and 41.4% transferred in from other facilities. Children age 1-4 years were the most commonly admitted age group (49.7%). Patients with ≥20% TBSA burns accounted for 7.8% of admissions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1-10.4%). Burn-related complications were documented in 5.9% of admissions (95% CI: 4.6-7.1%). CONCLUSION: Pediatric burn hospitalizations and burn-related mortality have decreased over time. The increases in transfers and admissions to hospitals with high pediatric burn volumes suggest increasing regionalization of care.

Evaluation of nurse accuracy in rating procedural pain among pediatric burn patients using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) Scale.

BACKGROUND: Accurate pain assessment is essential for proper analgesia during medical procedures in pediatric patients. The Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale has previously been shown to be a valid and reliable tool for assessing pediatric procedural pain in research labs. However, no study has investigated how rater factors (gender, number of dressing changes performed/week, burn history, having children, nursing experience, stress at home/work) and patient factors (pain intensity) affect the accuracy of FLACC ratings for procedural pain when implemented by bedside care providers. METHOD: Twenty-four nurses in an ABA verified Pediatric Burn Center watched four videos of dressing changes for pediatric burn patients in random order three times and rated the children's procedural pain using the FLACC scale. The four videos had standard FLACC scores established by an interdisciplinary panel. RESULTS: Descriptive and mixed modeling analysis was conducted to explore nurse rating accuracy and to evaluate the rater and patient factors that influenced the rating accuracy. The highest accuracy was reached when rating high procedural pain (with a FLACC of 6). Nurses underrated both mild and severe procedural pain. Nurses who had less nursing experience demonstrated significantly higher accuracy than those with more experience. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first study in the literature to systematically examine the factors influencing the accuracy of FLACC rating for pediatric procedural pain among bedside care providers. The findings suggest that nurse clinical experience and patient pain intensity are two significant contributors to rating accuracy.