Burn Unit Design-The Missing Link for Quality and Safety

Quality indicators for hospital burn care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Burn treatments are complex, and for this reason, a specialised multidisciplinary approach is recommended. Evaluating the quality of care provided to acute burn patients through quality indicators makes it possible to develop and implement measures aiming at better results. There is a lack of information on which indicators to evaluate care in burn patients. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify a list of quality indicators used to evaluate the quality of hospital care provided to acute burn patients and indicate possible aspects of care that do not have specific indicators in the literature.

METHOD

A comprehensive scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Lilacs/VHL) between July 25 and 30, 2022 and redone on October 6, 2022. Potentially relevant articles were evaluated for eligibility. General data and the identified quality indicators were collected for each included article. Each indicator was classified as a structure, process, or outcome indicator.

RESULTS

A total of 1548 studies were identified, 82 were included, and their reference lists were searched, adding 19 more publications. Thus, data were collected from 101 studies. This review identified eight structure quality indicators, 72 process indicators, and 19 outcome indicators listed and subdivided according to their objectives.

CONCLUSION

This study obtained a list of quality indicators already used to monitor and evaluate the hospital care of acute burn patients. These indicators may be useful for further research or implementation in quality improvement programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework platform on June 27, 2022 ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NAW85 ).

An Introduction to Burn Care: The Sequel

GENERAL PURPOSE

To review burn care, with an emphasis on burn-specific issues and treatment.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Select the appropriate treatment guidelines for patients who have burn injuries.2. Identify common complications of major burns.3. Choose the recommended pharmacologic approaches to burn care.

Ambient Room Temperatures in a Burn Intensive Care Unit-A Quality Improvement Project

Introduction: Patients with major burn injuries are particularly susceptible to hypothermia. The ability to maintain and rapidly increase ambient temperatures may reduce the impact of hypothermia and the hypermetabolic response. The purpose of this study was to determine ambient patient room temperatures in a burn intensive care unit (ICU) and to evaluate our ability to adjust these temperatures. Methods: The ambient temperatures of 9 burn ICU patient rooms were recorded hourly over a 6-month period in an American Burn Association-verified burn centre. Temperatures were recorded using wall-mounted smart sensors, transmitted to a mobile smartphone application via Bluetooth, and then exported to Excel for analysis. On 2 predetermined dates, thermostats in all rooms were simultaneously set to maximum, and monitored over 3 h. This represented a sound change initiative, and replicated a medical order to increase the ambient temperature during critical stages of patient care. Results: We recorded 4394 individual hourly temperature measurements for each of the 9 rooms. The mean ambient temperature was 23.5 ± 0.3 °C (range 22.8-24). After intervention 1, ambient temperatures increased <2 °C in 7 rooms and by only 2 °C-3 °C in the other 2 rooms. The overall mean increase in temperature over 3 h across all rooms was 1.03 °C ± 1.19 °C (range -0.88 to 3.26). Following intervention 2, temperatures could be increased by ≥2 °C in only 2 rooms with an overall mean increase in temperature of only 0.76 °C ± 0.99 °C (range -0.29 to 2.43) across all rooms. Conclusions: The burn ICU rooms were relatively cool and our ability locally to adjust ambient temperatures quickly was limited. Burn centres should have regular facility assessments to assess whether ambient temperatures can be adjusted expeditiously when required.

Patterns of multidrug resistant organism acquisition in an adult specialist burns service: a retrospective review

Background

Multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) occur more commonly in burns patients than in other hospital patients and are an increasingly frequent cause of burn-related mortality. We examined the incidence, trends and risk factors for MDRO acquisition in a specialist burns service housed in an open general surgical ward, and general intensive care unit.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of adult patients admitted with an acute burn injury to our specialist statewide tertiary burns service between July 2014 and October 2020. We linked patient demographics, injury, treatment, and outcome details from our prospective burns service registry to microbiology and antimicrobial prescribing data. The outcome of interest was first MDRO detection, stratified into the following groups of interest: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), two groups of Pseudomonas (carbapenem resistant, and piperacillin-tazobactam or cefepime resistant), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter species, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE). We used a Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate the association between antibiotic exposure and MDRO acquisition.

Results

There were 2,036 acute admissions, of which 230 (11.3%) had at least one MDRO isolated from clinical specimens, most frequently wound swabs. While acquisition rates of individual MDRO groups varied over the study period, acquisition rate of any MDRO was reasonably stable over time. Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas was acquired at the highest rate over the study period (3.5/1000 patient days). The 12.8% (29/226) of MDROs isolated within 48 h were predominantly MRSA and Stenotrophomonas. Median (IQR) time from admission to MDRO detection was 10.9 (5.6–20.5) days, ranging from 9.8 (2.7–24.2) for MRSA to 23.6 (15.7–36.0) for carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa. Patients with MDROs were older, had more extensive burns, longer length of stay, and were more likely to have operative burn management. We were unable to detect a relationship between antibiotic exposure and emergence of MDROs.

Conclusions

MDROs are a common and consistent presence in our burns unit. The pattern of acquisition suggests various causes, including introduction from the community and nosocomial spread. More regular surveillance of incidence and targeted interventions may decrease their prevalence, and limit the development of invasive infection.

Addition of admission lactate levels to Baux score improves mortality prediction in severe burns

Risk adjustment and mortality prediction models are central in optimising care and for benchmarking purposes. In the burn setting, the Baux score and its derivatives have been the mainstay for predictions of mortality from burns. Other well-known measures to predict mortality stem from the ICU setting, where, for example, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS 3) models have been found to be instrumental. Other attempts to further improve the prediction of outcome have been based on the following variables at admission: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (_aSOFA) score, determinations of _aLactate or Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (_aNLR). The aim of the present study was to examine if estimated mortality rate (EMR, SAPS 3), _aSOFA, _aLactate, and _aNLR can, either alone or in conjunction with the others, improve the mortality prediction beyond that of the effects of age and percentage total body surface area (TBSA%) burned among patients with severe burns who need critical care. This is a retrospective, explorative, single centre, registry study based on prospectively gathered data. The study included 222 patients with median (25th–75th centiles) age of 55.0 (38.0 to 69.0) years, TBSA% burned was 24.5 (13.0 to 37.2) and crude mortality was 17%. As anticipated highest predicting power was obtained with age and TBSA% with an AUC at 0.906 (95% CI 0.857 to 0.955) as compared with EMR, _aSOFA, _aLactate and _aNLR. The largest effect was seen thereafter by adding _aLactate to the model, increasing AUC to 0.938 (0.898 to 0.979) (p < 0.001). Whereafter, adding EMR, _aSOFA, and _aNLR, separately or in combinations, only marginally improved the prediction power. This study shows that the prediction model with age and TBSA% may be improved by adding _aLactate, despite the fact that _aLactate levels were only moderately increased. Thereafter, adding EMR, _aSOFA or _aNLR only marginally affected the mortality prediction.