Demographic Comparison of Burn Emergency Only Visits and Admissions in an Urban Burn Center

Using the NEISS database to understand pressure cooker related injuries in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of pressure cooker related injuries in US hospital emergency departments. To quantify injury patterns associated with pressure cookers and inform prevention recommendation messaging.

METHODS

The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried to identify injuries associated with pressure cookers between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2019. Case narratives were reviewed to identify precipitating or contributing factors of pressure cooker related injuries. Negative binomial regression was employed to test for trends over time.

RESULTS

The NEISS query identified 759 actual pressure cooker injuries between 2003 and 2019, yielding a national estimate of 28 337 (95% CI 24 588 to 32,086) injuries treated in US emergency departments, 1667 cases annually. Analysis of case narratives resulted in the identification of four predominant precipitating or contributing factors to injury: burning agent, struck by product, injured while opening and other.

CONCLUSION

NEISS is a valuable tool for determining injury incidence and understanding common injury patterns associated with specific products. Consumers and manufacturers of pressure cookers can develop safety strategies targeted at preventing the product's main injury risks.

Development of a Unified National Database of Burn Centers with Co-located Emergency Departments, 2020

The care of severely burned patients comes with unique requirements for specialized burn centers. The American Burn Association sets guidelines for burn centers and provides a voluntary program to verify their quality of care. However, not all burn centers are verified, and it is unclear which nonverified centers have met requirements set by their state health departments. To compile a complete database of all United States emergency departments in facilities with confirmed burn centers, we investigated state requirements to supplement data from the American Burn Association verification process. In 2020, only 13 states set requirements for burn centers; 3 states explicitly required American Burn Association verification, 4 used modified American Burn Association criteria, and 6 used alternate criteria. Only 2 states had separate requirements for pediatric burn centers. Based on adherence to state and American Burn Association criteria, we identified 90 confirmed burn centers in 2020, 85 of which had emergency departments. Of these 85, 45 (53%) were only verified, 17 (20%) were only state-confirmed, and 23 (27%) were both. Emergency departments in a confirmed burn center were more likely-than those without-to have higher adult and pediatric visit volumes, be academic, be a stroke or trauma (adult or pediatric) center, have a dedicated pediatric area, and have a pediatric emergency care coordinator. We compiled the first unified burn center database that incorporates state and American Burn Association lists. This database can be utilized in future health services research and is available to the public through a smartphone application.

Epidemiological and cost analysis of burn injuries admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary burn center

BACKGROUND

Burn injury is an emergency medical condition that rapidly develops as a result of tissue exposure to electrical, chemical or thermal energy. Therefore, its treatment usually begins at the emergency department. In this study we aimed to perform an epidemiological analysis of burn injuries presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary burn center, and factors affecting the cost of their medical care.

METHODS

Patients who presented to Baskent University Ankara Hospital Adult Emergency Department with burn injuries between January 2012 and December 2014 were studied for age, sex, time of admission, type of burn injury, clinical prognosis, mortality rate, percent burn area, and total cost of care. A total of 264 patients were enrolled. Chi square test was used for the comparison of categorical variables. Non-parametric tests were used for the comparison of continuous variables.

RESULTS

This study included 179 (67.8 %) women and 85 (32.2 %) men. The most common types of burn injuries were hot water burns and scalding. Eleven point seven percent of the patients sustained burn injuries in occupational accidents. 95.1 % of the patients were discharged from the emergency and 4.5 % of them were hospitalized. Only 1 (0.4 %) patient died. There was no significant difference between patient outcomes (discharge vs. hospital admission) with respect to the cost of care (p = 0.846) No significant difference was found between the cost of care of surgical and non-surgical management of burn injuries (p = 0.206). No significant difference was found between the costs of care of different types of burn injuries (p = 0.053). There was a significant difference between burn degrees with respect to the cost of care (p = 0.038). A significant difference was found between the costs of care of patients with a percent burn area of less than 10 % and those with a percent burn area of more than 10 % (p < 0.001), indicating that as percent burn area increased, a proportional increase occurred in the cost of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Burn degree and percent burn area were the main determinants of the cost of care of burn injuries. In conclusion, burn injuries are preventable by taking occupational measures and raising public awareness about domestic accidents.