Effect of training in the Emergency Management of Severe Burns on the knowledge and performance of emergency care workers as measured by an online simulated burn incident

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of training for the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) for medical and nursing staff working in emergency care as measured by their performance in a simulated burn incident online program. METHODS: An Internet-based questionnaire, which included a simulated burn incident, was developed. All of the medical and nursing staff in hospital emergency departments and ambulance services in the Netherlands were invited to complete this questionnaire. The effect of EMSB training on the individual's knowledge of and performance in the emergency management of a burn victim was evaluated because some of the respondents had participated in EMSB training, whereas others had not. RESULTS: Of the 280 responses received, 198 questionnaires were included in the analysis. The analyzed questionnaires were submitted by nurses (43%), ambulance workers (33%), and physicians (23%). Only 14% of the people in the study had participated in EMSB training, whereas 78% had received other or additional life support training and 22% of respondents had no additional life support training. Medical and nursing staff who had participated in EMSB training performed better in the following subjects: mentioning hypothermia as a focus of attention (70% versus 53%, p=0.085), correct use of hand size (70% versus 36%, p=0.001) and use of the correct hand percentage in the estimation of total body surface area (TBSA, 82% versus 57%, p=0.015), suspicion of no airway obstruction in an outdoor trauma (93% versus 63%, p = 0.002) and referral of functional area burns to a burn center (22% versus 8%, p = 0.04). However, both groups overestimated the TBSA (34% of the total group overestimated ≥ 20%) and did not know the correct formula for fluid resuscitation (87% of the total group). CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that medical staff members who have participated in EMSB training have a better knowledge of emergency management and are more effective in the management of a simulated burn case. However, both individuals who had participated in EMSB as well as those who had not participated in EMSB needed additional training in EMSB

Photographic assessment of burn size and depth: reliability and validity

Trauma Surger

A systematic review on surgical and nonsurgical debridement techniques of burn wounds

Objective: To provide a complete overview of all burn debridement techniques studied in recent literature and to find the best evidence with regard to efficiency and safety. Method: A systematic review was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier. All studies published from 1990 onwards, on the efficiency and/or safety of burn debridement techniques in patients with thermal burn injuries of any age, were included. Primary outcomes were time to complete wound healing and time to complete debridement. Randomized trials were critically appraised. Results: Twenty-seven studies, including four randomized clinical trials, were included. Time to wound healing in the conventional tangential excision (seven studies), hydrosurgery (eight studies), enzymatic debridement (eleven studies), and shock waves group (one study) ranged from 13–30, 11–13, 19–33, and 16 days, respectively. Time to complete debridement ranged from 5–10, 4–23, and 1–9 days, respectively. Furthermore, secondary outcomes (including grafting, mortality, and scar quality) were compared between the debridement categories. Conclusion: Convincing evidence in favor of any of these techniques is currently lacking. Future studies regarding (new) debridement techniques need to use standardized and validated outcome measurement tools to allow improved standardization and comparisons across studies

Doxepin cream is not effective in reducing itch in burn scar patients:A multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical crossover trial

Objective: To evaluate the effect of doxepin hydrochloride 5% cream on reducing pruritus in burn scar patients compared to a placebo cream. Method: We conducted a multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical placebo-controlled crossover trial in which burn patients ≥18 years with an itch intensity ≥3 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were randomized between a doxepin-placebo or placebo-doxepin treatment protocol. Patients used each cream during two weeks with a wash-out period of one week in between. Primary outcome was change in itch intensity in two weeks’ time using the VAS. Secondary outcome included the impact of itch (Burn Itch Questionnaire). Other parameters were the use of hydrating cream, silicon treatment, pressure garments, and other antipruritic medication. Results: Twenty-seven patients were included. The change in itch intensity (VAS) was not different during the doxepin and placebo period (p = 0.994); neither the doxepin cream nor placebo cream reduced itch intensity. However, based on the Burn Itch Questionnaire, we observed a statistically significant decrease in itch intensity and improvement in impact scores in both treatment groups, but no difference in the degree of reduction between the groups. Conclusion: Doxepin cream was not effective in reducing pruritus in our burn patient study population

Doxepin cream is not effective in reducing itch in burn scar patients: A multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical crossover trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of doxepin hydrochloride 5% cream on reducing pruritus in burn scar patients compared to a placebo cream. METHOD: We conducted a multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical placebo-controlled crossover trial in which burn patients ≥18 years with an itch intensity ≥3 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were randomized between a doxepin-placebo or placebo-doxepin treatment protocol. Patients used each cream during two weeks with a wash-out period of one week in between. Primary outcome was change in itch intensity in two weeks' time using the VAS. Secondary outcome included the impact of itch (Burn Itch Questionnaire). Other parameters were the use of hydrating cream, silicon treatment, pressure garments, and other antipruritic medication. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included. The change in itch intensity (VAS) was not different during the doxepin and placebo period (p=0.994); neither the doxepin cream nor placebo cream reduced itch intensity. However, based on the Burn Itch Questionnaire, we observed a statistically significant decrease in itch intensity and improvement in impact scores in both treatment groups, but no difference in the degree of reduction between the groups. CONCLUSION: Doxepin cream was not effective in reducing pruritus in our burn patient study population

Pain experience and functional outcome of inpatient versus outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, an equivalence randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow-up

Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has traditionally been performed in an inpatient setting. Outpatient treatment may offer the advantages of cost reduction and higher patient satisfaction. We investigated whether ACL reconstruction in an outpatient setting is equally safe as in an inpatient setting and whether comparable functional outcomes can be achieved. We hypothesized that the outcomes of outpatient ACL reconstruction result in similar outcomes as inpatient ACL reconstruction. A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at one centre. Forty-six patients were randomized to outpatient treatment or a 2-day admission after ACL reconstruction. The functional outcome was evaluated with the Lysholm, Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Safety of the procedures was judged according to pain experience and readmission rate. The duration of follow-up was 1 year after ACL reconstruction. The patients were provided with a simple postoperative analgesic protocol. The linear mixed effect model for repeated measures was used for testing the differences between the study groups. No significant differences were found between the study groups in all the outcome measures. No readmissions were recorded related to pain. One complication was recorded in the outpatient group versus three in the inpatient group. This study indicates that outpatient care after ACL reconstruction yields comparable functional results and postoperative pain experience as inpatient care and is a safe option. A simple analgesic protocol provides adequate pain relief during the postoperative phase.

Patterns and predictors of burn scar outcome in the first 12 months after burn: The patient's perspective

Objective: This study aimed to provide insight into the patterns and factors that predict burn scar outcomes at 3, 6 and 12 months after burn. Methods: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used to assess the scar formation of each patient. Structural equation modelling was used. The predictor variables used in this study were sex, three age categories, TBSA, depth of the wound and cause of the burn. Results: The POSAS patient total and individual item scores demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the first 12 months after burn, except for the relief item. Male patients had a lower total and items scores (better scar quality) for pain and pruritus compared with female patients. Full thickness burns had a higher scores for pruritus, pliability, thickness and relief compared to the partial-thickness burns. Ages younger than 5 years, higher TBSA values and flame burns were predictors of various POSAS items at 3 and 6 months after burn. Conclusion: The POSAS patient total and individual item scores demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the scar quality in the first 12 months after burn, except for the relief. Sex, age, depth of the wound, the percentage of TBSA and flame burns were predictors of various POSAS patient items at 3, 6 and 12 months after burn