Psychometric properties of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile in adults with burn scars

Working Towards Holistic Scar Assessment and Improved Shared Decision Making in Global Burn Care

Cutaneous burn scars impact various aspects of life. Scar treatment is mainly evaluated on scar characteristics. Consensus is needed on which other outcomes to capture, ensuring they are relevant to patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aim of this study was to identify, discuss and analyze outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, incorporating the voice of patients and views of healthcare professionals. For this, a Delphi process consisting of two survey rounds and a consensus meeting was initiated. Burn scar-related outcomes were identified from an existing comprehensive list of 100 outcomes by an international panel of patients, healthcare professionals and researchers. Fifty-nine outcomes were identified from the Delphi process as related to scarring (≥60% votes). Outcomes less impactful in relation to scar outcomes included psychosocial issues, sense of normality, understanding of treatment, costs and systemic issues. To represent a holistic assessment of outcomes related to cutaneous burn scarring, this Delphi process established a battery of outcomes currently included in scar quality assessment tools, and an expanded set of less frequently considered outcomes. Future work in this area must include the patient voice from developing countries. This is essential to identify globally applicable outcomes related to scarring.

From qualitative data to a measurement instrument: A clarification and elaboration of choices made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0

PURPOSE

To clarify and elaborate on the choices that were made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 (POSAS 3.0), based upon the rich information obtained from patients during focus groups and pilot tests.

METHODS

The discussions described in this paper are a reflection of the focus group study and pilot tests that were conducted in order to develop the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0. The focus groups took place in the Netherlands and Australia and included 45 participants. Pilot tests were performed with 15 participants in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

We discussed the selection, wording and merging of 17 included items. Additionally, the reason for exclusion of 23 characteristics are given.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the unique and rich material of patient input obtained, two versions of the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0 were developed: the Generic version, and the Linear scar version. The discussions and decisions taken during the development are informative for a good understanding of the POSAS 3.0 and are indispensable as a background for future translations and cross-cultural adaptations.

Carbon dioxide laser treatment of burn-related scarring: Results of the ELIPSE (Early Laser Intervention Promotes Scar Evolution) prospective randomized controlled trial

AIM

To investigate the impact of ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser (AFCO2L) on patient-reported outcomes measures, subjective scar appearance, dermal architecture, and gene transcription in early burn scars.

METHODS

Fifteen adult patients with a burn-related scar were recruited. Inclusion criteria were two non-contiguous scar areas of 1% total body surface area, similar baseline Vancouver scar scale (VSS) score and 3months since the time of injury. All participants acted as their own control. Scars were randomized to treatment or control. Treatment scars received three AFCO2L treatments at 6-week intervals. Outcome measures were recorded at baseline, 3, 6, and 12-months post-treatment. Measures included blinded VSS, Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP), blinded scar photo assessment, histological tissue analysis, and RNA sequencing analysis.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in VSS, scar erythema, or pigmentation. Patient POSAS improved in scar thickness and texture following AFCO2L. All elements of BBSIP improved in control and laser groups. AFCO2L-treated scars were scored better than control scars by blinded raters. RNA sequencing illustrated that AFCO2L induced sustained changes in fibroblast gene expression.

CONCLUSIONS

AFCO2L treated scars had significantly altered scar thickness and texture 6 months post-laser and were rated better than controls on blinded photo analysis after 3 treatments. RNASeq results suggest laser treatment alters the transcriptome of treated fibroblasts for at least 3 months after treatment. Expansion of this research to study in more depth fibroblast changes in response to laser, as well as assessing the impact on daily activity and quality of life, will be beneficial.

No statistically significant difference in long term scarring outcomes of pediatric burns patients treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively

Introduction

Paediatric burns are a common clinical presentation. The long-term scar outcomes in paediatric burns patients are relatively unknown as most are discharged after 6 weeks follow up, apart from the small number that are followed up by scar services depending on geographical availability. We aimed to determine whether the long-term scarring outcomes are significantly different in those who had surgical treatment with Versajet® debridement and Biobrane®, vs. those treated conservatively with non-adherent Mepitel® and Acticoat® dressings, in a cohort of paediatric burns patients.

Methods

The parents of all paediatric burns patients admitted to Stoke Mandeville Hospital from October 2014 to September 2017 were contacted by telephone to fill in the paediatric Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP), the only patient reported outcome measure (PROM) specifically aimed at children. The results from the questionnaires underwent statistical analysis to see if there was a significant difference in questionnaire scores between children treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively.

Results

A total of 107 children were admitted in the timeframe, responses were received from 34 patients with 13 having been treated surgically and 21 having been treated conservatively. In all 58 questions that make up the BBSIP, there was no statistically significant difference observed in the scores of those treated surgically vs. those treated conservatively. For 31 questions on the BBSIP, the lowest score indicating the best outcome was observed in all patients in both groups.

Discussion

Surgical management for burns is always the last resort. Our results could be interpreted to suggest clinicians need not fear the longer-term impact a scar may have when deciding whether to treat a paediatric burns patient surgically or conservatively. This study is the first to assess longer-term scar outcomes using the BBSIP. A larger data set and comparison with other burn units in the UK may help to provide more information on scar outcomes between different methods of surgical and conservative treatment. We found no statistically significant difference in the long-term scar outcomes as assessed by the BBSIP in paediatric burn patients treated with Versajet® debridement and Biobrane®, vs. those treated conservatively with non-adherent Mepitel® and Acticoat® dressings.

Patient experience of scar assessment and the use of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation: a qualitative study

Background

Scar assessment plays a key role during burns aftercare, to monitor scar remodelling and patients’ psychosocial well-being. To aid assessment, subjective scar assessment scales are available that use health-care professionals’ and patients’ opinions to score scar characteristics. The subjective scales are more widely used in clinical practice over objective scar measures. To date, there is no research that considers patients’ views on scar assessment and the role of subjective and objective assessment tools. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ perspectives on scar assessment and the utility of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 adult burn patients who were being reviewed in clinic for scarring. Participants were recruited via their clinical care team and research nurses at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Topics covered during interview included patient experience of scar assessment, the use of scar assessment tools and discussion surrounding important factors to be addressed when assessing scars. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted.

Results

Participants identified key subthemes that contribute towards the overarching theme of patient-centred scar assessment. These are: patient-led care; continuity in care; learning how to self-manage scarring; and psychological assessment. Links were demonstrated between these subthemes and the remaining themes that describe scar assessment strategies, indicating their potential patient-centred contributions. The subjective opinions of clinicians were found to be valued above the use of subjective or objective scar assessment tools. Scar assessment scales were perceived to be a beneficial method for self-reflection in relation to psychosocial functioning. However, minimal feedback and review of completed assessment scales led to uncertainty regarding their purpose. Patients perceived objective tools to be of primary use for health-care professionals, though the measures may aid patients’ understanding of scar properties.

Conclusions

Scar assessment tools should be used to support, rather than replace, health-care professionals’ subjective judgements of scarring. Adapting the way in which clinicians introduce and use scar assessment tools, according to patient needs, can support a patient-centred approach to scar assessment.

Subjective Tools for Burn Scar Assessment: An Integrative Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical and scientific literature on the subjective ways of assessing burn scars and describe their main characteristics.

DATA SOURCES

The Latin American, Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Nursing Database, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus and Web of Science databases were used to search for studies published between 2014 and 2018 using descriptors in Portuguese, Spanish, and English.

STUDY SELECTION

After establishing the research question and the location and definition of the studies, as well as accounting for differences among databases and application of filters based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 886 references remained.

DATA EXTRACTION

Investigators reviewed the titles and abstracts of the sample and selected 188 relevant studies for full review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-six subjective forms of assessment were found; most research concerned the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Vancouver Scar Scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Vancouver Scar Scale are the most common scales for assessing burn scars and have similar evaluation points such as vascularization, pliability, pigmentation, and height, which are the main parameters that contribute to the general assessment and severity of a scar. There is a need to improve instructions for application of the scales to facilitate better understanding and improve agreement among evaluators.

Burn injury

Burn injuries are under-appreciated injuries that are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Burn injuries, particularly severe burns, are accompanied by an immune and inflammatory response, metabolic changes and distributive shock that can be challenging to manage and can lead to multiple organ failure. Of great importance is that the injury affects not only the physical health, but also the mental health and quality of life of the patient. Accordingly, patients with burn injury cannot be considered recovered when the wounds have healed; instead, burn injury leads to long-term profound alterations that must be addressed to optimize quality of life. Burn care providers are, therefore, faced with a plethora of challenges including acute and critical care management, long-term care and rehabilitation. The aim of this Primer is not only to give an overview and update about burn care, but also to raise awareness of the ongoing challenges and stigmata associated with burn injuries.

Investigating the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools

BACKGROUND

Research into the treatment of hypertrophic burn scar is hampered by the variability and subjectivity of existing outcome measures. This study aims to measure the inter- and intra-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools.

METHODS

Three independent assessors evaluated 55 scar and normal skin sites using subjective (modified Vancouver Scar Scale [mVSS] & Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale [POSAS]) and objective tools. The intra-class correlation coefficient was utilised to measure reliability (acceptable when >0.70). Patient satisfaction with the different tools and scar parameter importance were assessed via questionnaires.

RESULTS

The inter-rater reliabilities of the mVSS and POSAS were below the acceptable limit. For erythema and pigmentation, all of the Scanoskin and DSM II measures (except the b* value) had acceptable to excellent intra and inter-rater reliability. The Dermascan ultrasound (dermal thickness, intensity) had excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability (>0.90). The Cutometer R0 (firmness) had acceptable reliability but not R2 (gross elasticity). All objective measurement tools had good overall satisfaction scores. Patients rated scar related pain and itch as more important compared to appearance although this finding was not sustained when corrected for multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The objective scar measures demonstrated acceptable to excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability and performed better than the subjective scar scales.

The longitudinal validity, reproducibility and responsiveness of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children version) for measuring health-related quality of life in children with burn scars

BACKGROUND

The measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) provides information about the perceived burden of the health condition and treatments from a lived experience. The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children, BBSIP^0-8), developed in 2013, is a proxy-report measure of burn scar-specific HRQoL. The aim of this study was to report its psychometric properties in line with an evaluative purpose.

METHODS

Caregivers of children up to 8 years of age at risk of burn scarring were recruited into a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Caregivers completed the BBSIP^0-8, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale at baseline (approximately ≥85% of the total body surface area re-epithelialised), 1-2 weeks after baseline and 1-month after baseline. Psychometric properties measured included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness.

RESULTS

Eighty-six caregivers of mostly male children (55%), of a median age (IQR) of 1 year, 10 months (2 years, 1 month) and total body surface area burn of 1.5% (3.0%) were recruited. Over one third of participants were grafted and 15% had contractures or skin tightness at baseline. Internal consistency of ten item groups ranged from 0.73 to 0.96. Hypothesised correlations of changes in the BBSIP^0-8 items with changes in criterion measures supported longitudinal validity (ρ ranging from -0.73 to 0.68). The majority of item groups had acceptable reproducibility (ICC = 0.65-0.83). The responsiveness of five item groups was supported (AUC = 0.71-0.90).

CONCLUSION

The psychometric properties tested support the use of the BBSIP^0-8 as an evaluative measure of burn scar-related health-related quality of life for children aged below eight years in the early post-acute period of rehabilitation. Further investigation at longer time period after burn injury is indicated.

Comparative effectiveness of Biobrane®, RECELL® Autologous skin Cell suspension and Silver dressings in partial thickness paediatric burns: BRACS randomised trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Mixed partial thickness burns are the most common depth of burn injury managed at a large Australian paediatric hospital specialty burns unit. Prolonged time until re-epithelialisation is associated with increased burn depth and scar formation. Whilst current wound management approaches have benefits such as anti-microbial cover, these are not without inherent limitations including multiple dressing changes. The Biobrane® RECELL® Autologous skin Cell suspension and Silver dressings (BRACS) trial aims to identify the most effective wound management approach for mixed partial thickness injuries in children.

METHODS

All children presenting with an acute burn injury to the study site will be screened for eligibility. This is a single-centre, three-arm, parallel group, randomised trial. Children younger than 16 years, with burns ≥ 5% total body surface area involving any anatomical location, up to 48 h after the burn injury, and of a superficial partial to mid-dermal depth, will be included. A sample size of 84 participants will be randomised to standard silver dressing or a Regenerative Epithelial Suspension (RES™) with Biobrane® or Biobrane® alone. The first dressing will be applied under general anaesthesia and subsequent dressings will be changed every 3 to 5 days until the wound is ≥ 95% re-epithelialised, with re-epithelialisation time the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes of acute pain, acute itch, scar severity, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction, dressing application ease and healthcare resource use will be assessed at each dressing change and 3, 6 and 12 months post-burn injury.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study can potentially change the wound management approach for superficial partial to mid-dermal burns in children locally and worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618000245291) approved prospective registration on 15 February 2018. Registration details can be viewed at https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374272&isReview=true.