Who manages burn injuries in children? A program director survey evaluating burn training during pediatric surgery fellowship

Standardized Wound Care: Patchwork Practices?

Standardized care is crucial in health care for ensuring consistent, safe, high-quality, efficient, and evidence-based practices. Care pathways that standardize procedures promote adherence to best practices, reduce variability in treatment, and encourage collaboration among health care teams. This approach ultimately improves patient outcomes, enhances safety, and boosts the overall effectiveness of health care services. However, despite these benefits being widespread across most of the U.S. health care system, wound care stands out as an area where standards can vary significantly. The inconsistency in wound care standards in the United States can be traced to several factors. These include limited structured clinical wound care education, the discretion of health care providers in different business environments, differences in wound care settings, varying access to advanced treatments and technology, patient demographics and socioeconomic status, as well as differences in state laws and regional or institutional practices. Addressing these disparities requires a comprehensive approach that considers the complex interplay of the abovementioned factors. Active measures are needed to improve access, equity, and the quality of wound care services for all patients, regardless of where they live, their socioeconomic status, their health care coverage, or the business interests of providers and their institutions as well as of vendors marketing wound care products inconsistent with evidence-based practice. By understanding and actively addressing these factors, we can work toward achieving more standardized, evidence-based, and patient-centered practices in wound care across the nation.

Setting an agenda for a national pediatric trauma system: Operationalization of the Pediatric Trauma State Assessment Score

ABSTRACT

Pediatric trauma system development is essential to public health infrastructure and pediatric health systems. Currently, trauma systems are managed at the state level, with significant variation in consideration of pediatric needs. A recently developed Pediatric Trauma System Assessment Score (PTSAS) demonstrated that states with lower PTSAS have increased pediatric mortality from trauma. Critical gaps are identified within six PTSAS domains: Legislation and Funding, Access to Care, Injury Prevention and Recognition, Disaster, Quality Improvement and Trauma Registry, and Pediatric Readiness. For each gap, a recommendation is provided regarding the necessary steps to address these challenges. Existing national organizations, including governmental, professional, and advocacy, highlight the potential partnerships that could be fostered to support efforts to address existing gaps. The organizations created under the US administration are described to highlight the ongoing efforts to support the development of pediatric emergency health systems.It is no longer sufficient to describe the disparities in pediatric trauma outcomes without taking action to ensure that the health system is equipped to manage injured children. By capitalizing on organizations that intersect with trauma and emergency systems to address known gaps, we can reduce the impact of injury on all children across the United States.

Utilization of chest tube as an esophagus stent in pediatric caustic injuries: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The management of caustic esophageal burns in the pediatric population has changed over the years, while the most optimal management with regards to effectiveness, availability, and cost-beneficent stays controvertible.

AIM

To describe how to utilize a chest tube for esophageal stenting in pediatrics.

METHODS

Data regarding the etiology, treatment, and complications of caustic injury in pediatrics over 10 years was collected retrospectively. Furthermore, data regarding the patient's follow-up who underwent esophageal chest tube (ECT) were collected. The ECT was prepared by carving a narrowed section in the chest tube while maintaining the radiopaque section. The ECT will then be positioned from the cricopharyngeal and exited through the nostril and fixed on the patient's cheek.

RESULTS

During the period of our study, data from 57 patients with an average age of 2.5 years (range 1-12; SD = 1.7) were obtained. The results showed that 89% of esophageal injury was due to alkaline and 9.4% were caused by acidic agents. The treatment methods showed that 29 patients (50.8%) recovered with dilatation alone. In 16 patients (28.06%), the esophageal repair was performed by using the colon, and in 5 patients (8.7%), other surgical methods were used and in 7 patients (12.2%), the ECT stents were used. ECT was inserted in 7 cases with a mean age of 2 (range: 1.5-3) years who were classified as grade IIB or III. Grading was performed by endoscopy assessment on the first day. Antibiotics and corticosteroids were administrated as initial medical management for all patients. ECT implantation was done during the first 8 d for 5 out of 7 cases (mean: 3.8 d). For the 2 patients, ECT was used after 27 (patient 6) d and 83 (patient 7) d. The reason for late stenting in these patients was a postponed referral to our center, in which patient 7 even received 4 dilation episodes before visiting our center. ECT was removed after an average of 44 d in the first 5 patients, while in the other 2 patients (6 and 7) was 2 and 1 wk, respectively. There was no complication related to, or failure of, stent placement. It is worth mentioning that none of the 7 ECT cases required gastrostomy or jejunostomy.

CONCLUSION

The ECT method introduced in our study can be used as a broadly available, economic, and easy-use facility for esophageal stenting, particularly in developing countries and emergency departments which have limited access to modern equipment. Further multicenter studies with higher volume patients are required for further deployment of this method.

Global trends in pediatric burn injuries and care capacity from the World Health Organization Global Burn Registry

BACKGROUND

Burn injuries are a major cause of death and disability globally. The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Global Burn Registry (GBR) to improve understanding of burn injuries worldwide, identify prevention targets, and benchmark acute care. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes of children with burns to demonstrate the GBR's utility and inform needs for pediatric burn prevention and treatment.

METHODS

We performed descriptive analyses of children age ≤ 18 years in the WHO GBR. We also described facility-level capacity. Data were extracted in September of 2021.

RESULTS

There were 8,640 pediatric and adult entries from 20 countries. Of these, 3,649 (42%) were children (0-18 years old) from predominantly middle-income countries. The mean age was 5.3 years and 60% were boys. Children aged 1-5 years comprised 62% (n = 2,279) of the cohort and mainly presented with scald burns (80%), followed by flame burns (14%). Children >5 years (n = 1,219) more frequently sustained flame burns (52%) followed by scald burns (29%). More than half of pediatric patients (52%) sustained a major burn (≥15% total body surface area) and 48% received surgery for wound closure during the index hospitalization. Older children had more severe injuries and required more surgery. Despite the frequency of severe injuries, critical care capacity was reported as "limited" for 23% of pediatric patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Children represent a large proportion of people with burn injuries globally and often sustain major injuries that require critical and surgical intervention. However, critical care capacity is limited at contributing centers and should be a priority for healthcare system development to avert preventable death and disability. This analysis demonstrates that the GBR has the potential to highlight key epidemiological characteristics and hospital capacity for pediatric burn patients. To improve global burn care, addressing barriers to GBR participation in low- and low-middle-income countries would allow for greater representation from a diversity of countries, regions, and burn care facilities.