The development of burn centers in North America.

Burn center development in North America began in the mid 1940s, surged in the 1970s, and had reached virtually every distinct medical market by 1985. The authors present chronologies of the establishment of 137 currently active burn centers in the United States and 27 burn facilities in Canada, discuss public policy and other influences on burn center development, and review burn admissions trends. Another 46 U.S. hospitals are identified as having shown interest in caring for serious burn injuries in recent decades. Since national admissions data first became available in 1970, the proportion of U.S. patients with burns treated in burn centers has increased from 10% to 40%. Data were obtained from a survey of 197 hospitals in the United States and Canada listed in recent Burn Care Resources directories of the American Burn Association and annual surveys of the American Burn Association and the National Center for Health Statistics. Further study of burn centers in both institutional and societal contexts and submittal of archival material are encouraged.

The contribution of a bacterially isolated environment to the prevention of infection in seriously burned patients.

A new system of patient protection from bacterial crossinfection called the Bacteria Controlled Nursing Unit (BCNU) is described, based on strict environmental control of a 6 x 10 foot area surrounding the patient's bed rather than the entire patient room or isolation ward, plus the ability to deliver all medical care without entering the protective environment and maintaining all monitoring, life support, and i.v. equipment outside the controlled environment. The clinical effectiveness of this system in the treatment of burn patients has been studied and compared with the effectiveness of single room isolation on a burn isolation ward and conventional isolation techniques on an open burn ward. The studies show that the BCNU is significantly more effective in preventing bacterial cross-contamination than conventional precautions (3.8% vs. 13.1%, P < 0.001; and 8% vs. 22.8%, P < 0.001) over a two and four week period. The studies also indicate that there was a significant increase in the probability of infection occurring following cross-contamination than occurring after auto-contamination (65% vs. 39%, P < 0.005), emphasizing the importance of preventing cross-contamination in reducing the overall infection rate in seriously burned patients. Clinical evaluation of the unit proved it to be compatible with intensive nursing and medical care without increasing the nurse to patient ratio. The unit provided sufficient control of bacterial cross-infection to allow reduction in mortality and improvement in the effectiveness of burn care through routine prompt excision of burn eschar and immediate wound closure to be carried out in severe and massively burned patients without a limiting threat of bacterial burn wound sepsis.