Development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is widely used for measurements of scar quality. This encompasses visual, tactile and sensory characteristics of the scar. The Patient Scale of previous POSAS versions was lacking input from patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale with involvement of adults patients with all scar types, complying with the highest clinimetric standards.

METHODS

From February 2018 to April 2019, a series of six focus group interviews were performed in the Netherlands and Australia to identify scar quality characteristics that adults with scars consider to be important. All focus groups were transcribed, anonymized and analysed using a thematic analysis. Relevant characteristics were formulated into items, resulting in a Dutch and English version of the Patient Scale. These drafts were pilot tested in Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and refined accordingly.

RESULTS

A total of 21 relevant scar quality characteristics were identified during the focus groups. Two distinct versions of the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale were developed. The Generic version contains 16 items and can be used for all scar types, except linear scars. The Linear Scar version of the Patient Scale contains the same 16 items, with an extra item referring to the widening of scar margins. All included items are rated on a verbal rating scale with five response options.

CONCLUSION

Two versions of the POSAS3.0 Patient Scale were developed. Further field tests are being performed to establish the measurement properties and scoring algorithm of the scales.

Doxepin cream is not effective in reducing itch in burn scar patients: A multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of doxepin hydrochloride 5% cream on reducing pruritus in burn scar patients compared to a placebo cream.

METHOD

We conducted a multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical placebo-controlled crossover trial in which burn patients ≥18 years with an itch intensity ≥3 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were randomized between a doxepin-placebo or placebo-doxepin treatment protocol. Patients used each cream during two weeks with a wash-out period of one week in between. Primary outcome was change in itch intensity in two weeks' time using the VAS. Secondary outcome included the impact of itch (Burn Itch Questionnaire). Other parameters were the use of hydrating cream, silicon treatment, pressure garments, and other antipruritic medication.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were included. The change in itch intensity (VAS) was not different during the doxepin and placebo period (p=0.994); neither the doxepin cream nor placebo cream reduced itch intensity. However, based on the Burn Itch Questionnaire, we observed a statistically significant decrease in itch intensity and improvement in impact scores in both treatment groups, but no difference in the degree of reduction between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Doxepin cream was not effective in reducing pruritus in our burn patient study population.

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.

Outcomes that matter most to burn patients: A national multicentre survey study in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The use of patient-reported outcomes to improve burn care increases. Little is known on burn patients' views on what outcomes are most important, and about preferences regarding online Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Therefore, this study assessed what outcomes matter most to patients, and gained insights into patient preferences towards the use of online PROMs.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18 years old), 3-36 months after injury completed a survey measuring importance of outcomes, separately for three time periods: during admission, short-term (<6 months) and long-term (6-24 months) after burn injury. Both open and closed-ended questions were used. Furthermore, preferences regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures in burn care were queried.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were included (response rate: 27%). 'Not having pain' and 'good wound healing' were identified as very important outcomes. Also, 'physical functioning at pre-injury level', 'being independent' and 'taking care of yourself' were considered very important outcomes. The top-ten of most important outcomes largely overlapped in all three time periods. Most patients (84%) had no problems with online questionnaires, and many (67%) indicated that it should take up to 15 minutes. Patients' opinions differed widely on the preferred frequency of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Not having pain and good wound healing were considered very important during the whole recovery of burns; in addition, physical functioning at pre-injury level, being independent, and taking care of yourself were deemed very important in the short and long-term. These outcomes are recommended to be used in burn care and research, although careful selection of outcomes remains crucial as patients prefer online questionnaires up to 15 minutes.

Trends and epidemiology of children treated in specialized burn centers in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2022

Knowledge about trends and epidemiology of pediatric burns is useful to identify patterns, to advance medical research, and to design prevention programs and resource allocation. The aim of this study is to describe the epidemiology and trends of pediatric burns between 2009 and 2022 in the three Dutch burn centers. A secondary objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pattern of pediatric burns. A register-based cohort study was conducted based on data from the Dutch Burn Repository R3. Patients between 0 and 17 years at the time of the burn injury admitted between 2009 and 2022 to one of the three burn centers were included. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate the incidence and patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. The COVID-19 pandemic years (2020-2021) were compared with the pooled results from pre-COVID-19 years (2017-2019). A total of 4017 patients were included in this study, of which 3085 (77%) were overnight admissions. The incidence and absolute number of pediatric burn admissions gradually increased over the years, with a small temporary decrease in 2020-2021. Patient and burn characteristics remained relatively consistent over the years. Three quarters of all patients were between 0 and 3 years old, and the majority were boys (59%). A decreasing ratio of length of stay per % total burned surface area and an increase in day admissions was observed since 2016 onwards, which intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a slight increase in the number of pediatric admissions to the burn centers between 2009 and 2022. Young children (0-3 years) remain the most frequently affected group. A shorter relative length of stay was observed, as well as an increase in day admissions, which was reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Burns are a leading cause of death and disability among children globally. The largest group affected are young children (0-3 years) and most are scald burns. • In the Netherlands, since the late nineties there has been a trend towards more admissions to specialized burn centers, especially for young children with less severe burns.

WHAT IS NEW

• There was a slight increase in the number of pediatric admissions to the burn centers between 2009 and 2022, with a temporary decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Admissions now tend to be shorter per percentage total burned surface area (TBSA), with an increase in day admissions, which intensified during the COVID-19 years.

Development of a value-based healthcare burns core set for adult burn care

BACKGROUND

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is increasingly implemented in healthcare worldwide. Transparent measurement of the outcomes most important and relevant to patients is essential in VBHC, which is supported by a core set of most important quality indicators and outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a VBHC-burns core set for adult burn patients.

METHODS

A three-round modified national Delphi study, including 44 outcomes and 24 quality indicators, was conducted to reach consensus among Dutch patients, burn care professionals and researchers. Items were rated on a nine-point Likert scale and selected if ≥ 70% in each group considered an item 'important'. Subsequently, instruments quantifying selected outcomes were identified based on a literature review and were chosen in a consensus meeting using recommendations from the Dutch consensus-based standard set and the Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities. Time assessment points were chosen to reflect the burn care and patient recovery process. Finally, the initial core set was evaluated in practice, leading to the adapted VBHC-burns core set.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients, 63 burn care professionals and 23 researchers participated. Ten outcomes and four quality indicators were selected in the Delphi study, including the outcomes pain, wound healing, physical activity, self-care, independence, return to work, depression, itching, scar flexibility and return to school. Quality indicators included shared decision-making (SDM), the number of patients receiving aftercare, determination of burn depth, and assessment of active range of motion. After evaluation of its use in clinical practice, the core set included all items except SDM, which are assessed by 9 patient-reported outcome instruments or measured in clinical care. Assessment time points included are at discharge, 2 weeks, 3 months, 12 months after discharge and annually afterwards.

CONCLUSION

A VBHC-burns core set was developed, consisting of outcomes and quality indicators that are important to burn patients and burn care professionals. The VBHC-burns core set is now systemically monitored and analysed in Dutch burn care to improve care and patient relevant outcomes. As improving burn care and patient relevant outcomes is important worldwide, the developed VBHC-burns core set could be inspiring for other countries.

The prevalence and predictors of reconstructive surgery in pediatric burn care

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the prevalence and predictors of reconstructive surgery among pediatric burn patients in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Pediatric burn patients were identified through the Dutch Burn Repository R3. Eligibility criteria included a burn requiring hospital admission or surgical treatment at one of the Dutch burn centers in 2009-2019. First, patient, burn, and treatment characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Second, time to the first reconstructive surgery was modelled using Kaplan Meier curves. Third, a prediction model was developed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The model's performance was assessed using calibration, discrimination, and explained variance. Fourth, internal validation was performed using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Approximately three percent (n = 84) of pediatric patients (n = 3072) required reconstructive surgery between the initial burn-related hospital admission and September 2021. Median time to the first reconstructive surgery was 1.2 (0.7-1.6) years. Most surgeries were performed on the face, arm, neck, hand, or anterior trunk, owing to contractures or hypertrophic scarring. Predictors of reconstruction included the etiology, anatomical site, extent of full-thickness burn, surgical treatment in the acute phase, and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Our study provided an overview of the prevalence and independent predictors of reconstructive surgery in the pediatric burn population.

A clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of 3D technology for scar surface area measurement

INTRODUCTION

The quality of scars has become an important outcome of burn care. Objective scar assessment through scar surface area measurement enables quantification of scar formation and evaluation of treatment efficacy. 3D technology has proven valid and reliable but often remains cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. 3D technology with depth sensors on mobile devices has become available and might surpass these limitations. This study provides a clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of a 3D system with a depth sensor for scar surface area measurement.

METHODS

A technology involving a depth sensor mounted on a mobile device was used. Images and analyses were made with a custom-made software application. A standardized one-keyframe image capturing procedure was followed. To assess validity, stickers with predefined dimensions (8.01 cm² - 77.70 cm²) were imaged in a single observer setting on various body parts of healthy volunteers. To assess reliability, hypertrophic scars, keloids, and normotrophic scars were imaged and rated by two observers independently. Data are expressed as mean (+/-SD), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and Limits of Agreements (LoA).

RESULTS

Eighty stickers placed on 20 healthy volunteers showed validity with CV between 0.62%- 1.67% for observer A and 0.75%- 1.19% for observer B. For the reliability study, 69 scars on 36 patients were included. Mean scar surface area ranged from 0.83 cm² to 155.59 cm². Mean scar surface area measurement was 13.83 cm² (SD 23.06) for observer A and 13.59 cm² (SD 23.31) for observer B. Adjusted interobserver CV for trained observers is estimated as 5.59%, with corresponding LoA = 0 ± 0.15 x mean surface area. Interobserver ICCs were 0.99-1.00.

CONCLUSION

This 3D technology with a depth sensor for measuring scar surface area provides valid and reliable data and thereby surpasses expensive and time-consuming 3D cameras.