Identifying Hospitals in Nepal for Acute Burn Care and Stabilization Capacity Development: Location-Allocation Modeling for Strategic Service Delivery

Burn pain management in a female patient with severe burn injuries in Nepal: a case study and review

Burn injuries in low-resource settings like Nepal present significant public health challenges, leading to substantial morbidity, mortality and severe pain. This paper assesses burn pain management in Nepal, emphasizing the need for enhanced strategies. A case study of a female patient with severe burn injuries from a rural village in Western Nepal illustrates current challenges. Reviewing studies on burn pain management in Nepal shows limited access to specialized facilities, inadequate palliative care, medication shortages and insufficient healthcare professionals. Pharmacological interventions are impacted by financial constraints and a lack of protocols, while nonpharmacological approaches have not been explored and contextualized for the Nepalese context due to similar financial issues. Comprehensive burn pain management requires addressing resource constraints through collaborative health-aid partnerships.

Consumer focus group testing with stakeholders to generate an enteral resuscitation training flipbook for primary health center and first-level hospital providers in Nepal

INTRODUCTION

Enteral resuscitation (EResus) is operationally advantageous to intravenous resuscitation for burn-injured patients in some low-resource settings. However, there is minimal guidance and no training materials for EResus tailored to non-burn care providers. We aimed to develop and consumer-test a training flipbook with doctors and nurses in Nepal to aid broader dissemination of this life-saving technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used individual cognitive interviews with Nepali (n = 12) and international (n = 4) burn care experts to define key elements of EResus and specific concepts for its operationalization at primary health centers and first-level hospitals in Nepal. Content, prototype illustrations, and wireframe layouts were developed and revised with the burn care experts. Subsequently, eight consumer testing focus groups with Nepali stakeholders (5-10 people each) were facilitated. Prompts were generated using the Questionnaire Appraisal System (QAS) framework. The flipbook was iteratively revised and tested based on consumer feedback organized according to the domains of clarity, assumptions, knowledge/memory, and sensitivity/bias.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The flipbook elements were iterated until consumers made no additional requests for changes. Examples of consumer inputs included: clarity-minimize medical jargon, add shrunken organs and wilted plants to represent burn shock; assumptions-use locally representative figures, depict oral rehydration salts sachet instead of a graduated bottle; knowledge/memory-clarify complex topics, use Rule-of-9 s and depict approximately 20% total body surface area to indicate the threshold for resuscitation; sensitivity/bias-reduce anatomic illustration details (e.g. urinary catheter placement, body contours).

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder engagement, consumer testing, and iterative revision can generate knowledge translation products that reflect contextually appropriate education materials for inexperienced burn providers. The EResus Training Flipbook can be used in Nepal and adapted to other contexts to facilitate the implementation of EResus globally.

The Global Macroeconomic Burden of Burn Injuries

BACKGROUND

Standardized estimates of global economic losses from burn injuries are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to determine the global macroeconomic consequences of burn injuries and their geographic distribution.

METHODS

Using the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation database (2009 and 2019), mean and 95% uncertainty interval (UI) data on incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) from injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances were collected. Gross domestic product (GDP) data were analyzed together with DALYs to estimate macroeconomic losses globally using a value of lost welfare approach.

RESULTS

There were 9 million global burn cases (95% UI, 6.8 to 11.2 million) and 111,000 deaths from burns (95% UI, 88,000 to 132,000 deaths) in 2019, representing a total of 7.5 million DALYs (95% UI, 5.8 to 9.5 million DALYs). This represented welfare losses of $112 billion (95% UI, $78 to $161 billion), or 0.09% of GDP (95% UI, 0.06% to 0.13%). Welfare losses as a share of GDP were highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) of Oceania (0.24%; 95% UI, 0.09% to 0.42%) and Eastern Europe (0.24%; 95% UI, 0.19% to 0.30%) compared with high-income country regions such as Western Europe (0.06%; 95% UI, 0.04% to 0.09%). Mortality-incidence ratios were highest in LMIC regions, highlighting a lack of treatment access, with southern sub-Saharan Africa reporting a mortality-incidence ratio of 40.1 per 1000 people compared with 1.9 for Australasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Burden of disease and resulting economic losses because of burn injuries are substantial worldwide and are disproportionately higher in LMICs. Possible effective solutions include targeted education, advocacy, and legislation to decrease incidence and investing in existing burn centers to improve treatment access.

Burn Admissions Across Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Repeated Cross-sectional Survey

Burn injuries have decreased markedly in high-income countries while the incidence of burns remains high in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) where more than 90% of burns are thought to occur. However, the cause of burns in LMIC is poorly documented. The aim was to document the causes of severe burns and the changes over time. A cross-sectional survey was completed for 2014 and 2019 in eight burn centers across Africa, Asia, and Latin America: Cairo, Nairobi, Ibadan, Johannesburg, Dhaka, Kathmandu, Sao Paulo, and Guadalajara. The information summarised included demographics of burn patients, location, cause, and outcomes of burns. In total, 15,344 patients were admitted across all centers, 37% of burns were women and 36% of burns were children. Burns occurred mostly in household settings (43-79%). In Dhaka and Kathmandu, occupational burns were also common (32 and 43%, respectively). Hot liquid and flame burns were most common while electric burns were also common in Dhaka and Sao Paulo. The type of flame burns varies by center and year, in Dhaka, 77% resulted from solid fuel in 2014 while 74% of burns resulted from Liquefied Petroleum Gas in 2019. In Nairobi, a large proportion (32%) of burns were intentional self-harm or assault. The average length of stay in hospitals decreased from 2014 to 2019. The percentage of deaths ranged from 5% to 24%. Our data provide important information on the causes of severe burns which can provide guidance in how to approach the development of burn injury prevention programs in LMIC.

Sparsity of burn centers and prolonged length of hospital stay: A nationwide study

INTRODUCTION

The optimal distribution of burn centers remains unclear. We aimed to determine the appropriate number of burn centers per population (density) and examined a nationwide registry with the hypothesis that low-density burn centers would be associated with unfavorable outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using the Japanese Society of Burn Injury registry (2011-2021). Burn center density was defined as the number of burn centers per one million population in each prefecture, and centers were trisected on the basis of density. Hospital-free days until day 30 were compared between patients at high-, middle-, and low-density centers. Inverse probability weighting was conducted to adjust baseline characteristics, including age, burn mechanism, and burn severity.

RESULTS

We included 6764, 6209, and 2200 patients at high-, middle-, and low-density burn centers, respectively. After adjusting for patient demographics and burn severity, patients at high- and middle-density centers (≥0.4 centers per one million population) had longer hospital-free days compared with those at low-density centers (11 [0-23] vs 11 [0-23] vs 8 [0-22] days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Low burn center density (<0.4 centers per one million population) was associated with longer hospital stay, whereas no higher limit was determined.