Literature DB >> 18182924

Analysis of admissions and outcomes in verified and nonverified burn centers.

Tina L Palmieri1, Jason A London, Michael S O'Mara, David G Greenhalgh.   

Abstract

The American Burn Association instituted a burn center verification process to ensure optimal care for patients with burn injury. Limited data exist regarding differences in admissions and outcomes between verified (VC) and nonverified burn centers (NVC). The study purpose was to compare demographics, treatment, and outcomes of VC and NVC. The five VC were compared with the 12 NVC using data from California's discharge database for the year 2003. A total of 2867 patients were admitted to a burn center, 1645 to NVC (132/center), and 1222 (244/center) to VC. NVC admitted 1496 (91%) of their patients from local area and 118 (7%) from other acute care hospitals; in contrast, 948 (78%) of VC patients were local and 253 (21%) were transfers from other acute care hospitals. VCs admitted twice as many burns > or =80% total body surface area as NVC. VCs admitted more patients with face burns (18% VC vs 14% NVC, P < .001), had more patients on mechanical ventilation (12.4% VC vs 9.9% NVC P < .04), and performed fewer operations (61% VC vs 66% NVC, P < .006). Mortality rate was 3% in NVC and 4% in VC. During the study period verified centers in California admitted more patients per center and treated more severely injured patients than nonverified centers. Despite these differences, VC had mortality rates comparable to their nonverified counterparts. These findings support the need for additional studies evaluating the impact of verification on burn care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18182924     DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31815f31b4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Burn Care Res        ISSN: 1559-047X            Impact factor:   1.845


  5 in total

1.  Verified centers, nonverified centers, or other facilities: a national analysis of burn patient treatment location.

Authors:  David Zonies; Christopher Mack; Bradley Kramer; Frederick Rivara; Matthew Klein
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  A validity review of the National Burn Repository.

Authors:  Sandra L Taylor; Deborah Lee; Travis Nagler; Mary Beth Lawless; Terese Curri; Tina L Palmieri
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.845

Review 3.  Management of Critical Burn Injuries: Recent Developments.

Authors:  David J Dries; John J Marini
Journal:  Korean J Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-02-17

4.  Management of burn injuries--recent developments in resuscitation, infection control and outcomes research.

Authors:  David J Dries
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Geographic Variation in Outcomes After Burn Injury: A Burn Model System National Database Study.

Authors:  Leda F Espinoza; Jonathan Friedstat; Nicholas Faoro; Philip H Chang; Kara A McMullen; Laura C Simko; Peter Esselman; Radha Holavanahalli; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.763

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.