The Effect of Surgical Intervention on Pediatric Burn Injury Survival in a Resource-Poor Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Burns are one of the most common injuries sustained globally. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected by burn injury morbidity and mortality; African children have the highest burn mortality globally. In high-income countries, early surgical intervention has shown to improve survival. However, when applied to burn victims in LMICs, improved survival in the early excision cohort (≤5 d) was not seen. Therefore, we aimed to determine the magnitude of the effect of surgical intervention on burn injury survival. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data, utilizing the Kamuzu Central Hospital Burn Database from May 2011 to July 2019, was performed. Pediatric patients (≤12 y) were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent surgical intervention for nonacute burn care management. Bivariate analyses stratifying by type of surgical intervention was performed, comparing demographics, burn characteristics, surgical intervention, and patient mortality. Standardized estimates were adjusted using the inverse-probability of treatment weights to account for confounding. Weighted logistic regression modeling was performed to determine the odds of mortality based on if a patient underwent surgical intervention. RESULTS: During the study, 2364 patients were seen at the Kamuzu Central Hospital, 1785 (75.5%) were children ≤12 y who met inclusion criteria. In the overall cohort, 342 (19.2%) underwent operations, including split-thickness skin graft (n = 196, 57.3%), debridement (n = 116, 33.9%), escharotomy (n = 19, 5.6%), and amputation (n = 1, 0.3%). The surgery cohort was older (4.2 ± 3.1 versus 3.1 ± 2.6 y, P < 0.001) with larger percent total body surface area burns (16%, interquartile range: 10-24 versus 13%, interquartile range: 8-20, P < 0.001) than those who did not have surgery. In the propensity score-weighted logistic regression predicting survival, patients undergoing surgery after burn injury had an increased odds of survival (odds ratio: 5.24, 95% confidence interval: 2.40-11.44, P = 0.003) when compared with patients not undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity-weighted analysis, surgical intervention following burn injury increases the odds of survival by a factor of 5.24 when compared with patients not undergoing surgical intervention. Efforts to enhance burn infrastructure to deliver surgical care is imperative to attenuate burn mortality in resource-poor settings.

Burn disaster preparedness and the southern region of the United States.

Disasters with significant numbers of burn-injured patients create incredible challenges for disaster planners. Although not unique to burn care, high-intensity areas of specialty such as burns, pediatrics, and trauma quickly become scarce resources in a disaster.All disasters are local, but regional support is critical in burn disaster planning. On a day-to-day basis, burn bed capacity can be problematic. A review of the literature and our experiences, including mathematical modeling and real events, reaffirm how rapidly we can overwhelm our resources.This review includes the Southern Burn Plan, created by the burn centers of the American Burn Association's Southern Region, should there be a need for additional hospital burn beds (capacity) and burn care (capability) in response to a disaster. This article also explores planning and preparedness developments and describes options to improve our efforts, including training and education.It is incumbent upon everyone in the healthcare profession to become comfortable managing burn-injured patients until the patients can be moved to a burn center. Understanding the regional capacity, capability, and when a surge of patients may require the practice of altered standards of care is essential for those involved in medical disaster preparedness.

Geospatial Mapping as a Guide for Resource Allocation Among Burn Centers in India.

Timely treatment is essential for optimal outcomes after burn injury, but the method of resource distribution to ensure access to proper care in developing countries remains unclear. We therefore sought to examine access to burn care and the presence/absence of resources for burn care in India. We surveyed all eligible burn centers (n = 67) in India to evaluate burn care resources at each facility. We then performed a cross-sectional geospatial analysis using geocoding software (ArcGIS 10.3) and publicly available hospital-level data (WorldStreetMap, WorldPop database) to predict the time required to access care at the nearest burn center. Our primary outcome was the time required to reach a burn facility within India. Descriptive statistics were used to present our results. Of the 67 burn centers that completed the survey, 45% were government funded. More than 1 billion (75.1%) Indian citizens live within 2 hours of a burn center, but only 221.9 million (15.9%) live within 2 hours of a burn center with both an intensive care unit (ICU) and a skin bank. Burn units are staffed primarily by plastic surgeons (n = 62, 93%) with an average of 5.8 physicians per unit. Most burn units (n = 53, 79%) have access to hemodialysis. While many Indian citizens live within 2 hours of a burn center, most centers do not offer ICU and skin bank services that are essential for modern burn care. Reallocation of resources to improve transportation and availability of ICU and skin bank services is necessary to improve burn care in India.

Geographic access to burn center hospitals.

CONTEXT: The delivery of burn care is a resource-intensive endeavor that requires specialized personnel and equipment. The optimal geographic distribution of burn centers has long been debated; however, the current distribution of centers relative to geographic area and population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of the US population living within 1 and 2 hours by rotary air transport (helicopter) or ground transport of a burn care facility. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of geographic access to US burn centers utilizing the 2000 US census, road and speed limit data, the Atlas and Database of Air Medical Services database, and the 2008 American Burn Association Directory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of state, regional, and national population living within 1 and 2 hours by air transport or ground transport of a burn care facility. RESULTS: In 2008, there were 128 self-reported burn centers in the United States including 51 American Burn Association-verified centers. An estimated 25.1% and 46.3% of the US population live within 1 and 2 hours by ground transport, respectively, of a verified burn center. By air, 53.9% and 79.0% of the population live within 1 and 2 hours, respectively, of a verified center. There was significant regional variation in access to verified burn centers by both ground and rotary air transport. The greatest proportion of the population with access was highest in the northeast region and lowest in the southern United States. CONCLUSION: Nearly 80% of the US population lives within 2 hours by ground or rotary air transport of a verified burn center; however, there is both state and regional variation in geographic access to these centers.

Regional disparities in access to verified burn center care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Burn injuries result in 50,000 annual admissions. Despite joint referral criteria from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and American Burn Association (ABA), many severely injured patients are not treated at verified centers with specialized care. Only one prior study explores regional variation in access to burn centers, focusing on flight or driving distance without considering the size of the population accessing that center. We hypothesize that disparities exist in access to verified centers, measured at a population level. We aim to identify a subset of nonverified centers that, if verified, would most impact access to the highest level of burn care. METHODS: We collected ABA data for all verified and nonverified adult burn centers and geocoded their locations. We used county-level population data and a two-step floating catchment method to determine weighted access in terms of total beds available locally per population. We compared regions, as defined by the ABA, in terms of overall access. Low access was calculated to be less than 0.3 beds per 100,000 people using a conservative estimate. RESULTS: We identified 113 centers, 59 verified and 54 nonverified. Only 2.9% of the population lives in areas with no verified center in 300 miles; however, 24.7% live in areas with low access. Significant regional disparities exist, with 37.3% of the population in the Southern Region having low access as compared with just 10.5% in the Northeastern Region. We identified 8 nonverified centers that would most impact access in areas with no or low access. CONCLUSION: We found significant disparities in access to verified center burn care and determined nonverified centers with the greatest potential to increase access, if verified. Our future directions include identifying barriers to verification, such as lack of fellowship-trained burn surgeons or lack of hospital commitment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Current approach to burn critical care.

Burn trauma is a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality all over the world. Advancements in resuscitation, surgical tecniques, infection control and nutritional/metaolic support decreased mortality and morbidity. This article intends to review current outlines for initial treatment and resuscitation nutritional/metabolic support and wound management peculiar to burn patients.

Clinical management of electrical burns in the developing world: a case of electrical burn injury left untreated leading to amputation.

We discuss the case of a 26-year-old male patient from Northern Samar, the Philippines who was left without essential health services after the amputation of all four limbs following a high voltage (20 000 volts) injury in Metro Manila in 2011. Local health services in the developing world are faced with enormous challenges in providing first-line care for burn patients. The cost of maintaining a burn unit, finding suitable qualified staff, and appropriate referral mechanisms are only some of the challenges faced. Once a patient is discharged from hospital they face more obstacles in obtaining artificial limbs, physiotherapy and access to mental health services. Disability pensions are non-existent thus patients place a considerable lifelong burden on their families.

Current status of burn care facilities: a nationwide survey.

The problems associated with burn injuries are wide-ranging, and the social and economic impacts of burns affect all of society. Only burn units have the capability to properly care for these patients, and this specialization translates to increased costs. The aim of this study was to examine the current status of burn units in Turkey. There are no reliable epidemiological data on burns and burn units in our country, so we conducted our own survey. In March 2003, Turkey had 1198 hospitals with 159,290 patient beds. To collect data related to burn care centers, we mailed a questionnaire to every hospital (974 total sent) and a different questionnaire to every City Health Directorate (81 total sent). Seven hundred and seventy-seven hospitals (79.8%) responded, and the results indicate that the number of burn care centers has risen significantly in the past decade. At most centers, plastic-reconstructive surgeons and general surgeons are the physicians who care for burn patients. The survey findings indicate that Turkey needs many more burn centers, and also better quality units. In addition, in-service training of health care professionals is required. As well, a curriculum should be developed for continuous public education geared towards burn prevention and first aid.

Tracking the daily availability of burn beds for national emergencies.

Medical planning for Operation Iraqi Freedom included predictive models of expected number of burn casualties. In all but the best-case scenario, casualty estimates exceeded the capacity of the only Department of Defense burn center. Examination of existing federal-civilian disaster plans for military hospital augmentation revealed that bed availability data were neither timely nor accurate. Recognizing the need for accurate knowledge of burn bed availability, the Department of Defense requested assistance from the American Burn Association (ABA). Directors of burn centers in the United States were queried for interest in participation in a mass casualty plan to provide overflow burn bed capacity. A list of 70 participating burn centers was devised based upon proximity to planned military embarkation points. A computer tracking program was developed. Daily automated e-mail messages requesting bed status were sent to burn center directors at 6 am Central time with responses requested before 11 am. The collated list of national overflow burn bed capacity was e-mailed each day to the ABA Central Office and to federal and military agencies involved with burn patient triage and transportation. Once automated, this task required only 1-2 hours a day. Available burn-bed lists were generated daily between March 17 and May 2, 2003 and then every other day until May 9, 2003. A total of 2151 responses were received (mean, 43 burn centers per day). A system to track daily nationwide burn bed availability was successfully implemented. Although intended for military conflict, this system is equally applicable to civilian mass casualty situations. We advocate adoption of this or a similar bed tracking system by the ABA for use during burn mass casualty incidents.

Developing a regional and national burn disaster response.

The supplement on burns by the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) requires an evaluation of burn centers' and burn hospitals' capabilities for treating seriously burned victims. The American Burn Association (ABA) and its members, as experts in burn care, should take the lead in working with local, state, and federal disaster planners. Proposals based on standards adopted by the ABA support classification of facilities (levels I, II, III), identify minimum and maximum bed availability, require minimum training for personnel (e.g., ABLS), and encourage enrollment of all burn centers and burn hospitals as contract hospitals in the National Disaster Medical System. Periodically, the ABA should verify that the burn care facilities identified in the disaster plan meet its standards. Once the burn disaster system is developed, drills should be held locally on a regular basis and nationally on an annual basis.