Literature DB >> 24270085

Redefining the outcomes to resources ratio for burn patient triage in a mass casualty.

Sandra Taylor1, James Jeng, Jeffrey R Saffle, Soman Sen, David G Greenhalgh, Tina L Palmieri.   

Abstract

Recent disasters highlight the need for predisaster planning, including the need for accurate triage. Data-driven triage tables, such as that generated from the 2002 National Burn Repository, are vital to optimize resource use during a disaster. The study purpose was to generate a burn resource disaster triage table based on current burn-treatment outcomes. Data from the NBR after the year 2000 were audited. Records that missed age, burn size, or survival status were excluded from analysis. Duplicate records, readmissions, transfers, and nonburn injuries were eliminated. Resource use was divided into expectant (predicted mortality >90%), low (mortality 50-90%), medium (mortality 10-50%), high (mortality <10%, admission 14-21 days), very high (mortality <10%, admission <14 days), and outpatient. Tables were created for all patient admissions and with/without inhalation injury. Of the 286,293 records, 210,683 were from the year 2000 or later. Expectant status for those aged >70 years began at 50% burn; a 20- to 29-year-old never reached expectant status. Inhalation injury lowered the expectant category to a burn size of 40% in >70-year-olds, and at >90% in 20- to 29-year-olds. The 0- to 1.9-year old group without inhalation injury never reached expectant status; with inhalation injury, expectant status was reached at >80% burn. Changes in the triage tables suggest that burn care has changed in the past 10 years. Inhalation injury significantly alters triage in a burn disaster. Use of these updated tables for triage in a disaster may improve our ability to allocate resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24270085      PMCID: PMC3935344          DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000034

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


  9 in total

1.  Disaster management and the ABA Plan.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Burn Care Rehabil       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr

2.  Defining the ratio of outcomes to resources for triage of burn patients in mass casualties.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Saffle; Nicole Gibran; Marion Jordan
Journal:  J Burn Care Rehabil       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec

3.  'Just send them all to a burn centre': managing burn resources in a mass casualty incident.

Authors:  Kathe M Conlon; Shawn Martin
Journal:  J Bus Contin Emer Plan       Date:  2011-06

4.  Objective estimates of the probability of death from burn injuries.

Authors:  C M Ryan; D A Schoenfeld; W P Thorpe; R L Sheridan; E H Cassem; R G Tompkins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-02-05       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Prognostic scoring systems in burns: a review.

Authors:  N N Sheppard; S Hemington-Gorse; O P Shelley; B Philp; P Dziewulski
Journal:  Burns       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 2.744

Review 6.  Predicting prognosis in thermal burns with associated inhalational injury: a systematic review of prognostic factors in adult burn victims.

Authors:  Shannon M Colohan
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.845

7.  Mortality determinants in massive pediatric burns. An analysis of 103 children with > or = 80% TBSA burns (> or = 70% full-thickness).

Authors:  S E Wolf; J K Rose; M H Desai; J P Mileski; R E Barrow; D N Herndon
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Burn disaster response planning in New York City: updated recommendations for best practices.

Authors:  Nicole E Leahy; Roger W Yurt; Eliot J Lazar; Alfred A Villacara; Angela C Rabbitts; Laurence Berger; Carri Chan; Laurence Chertoff; Kathe M Conlon; Arthur Cooper; Linda V Green; Bruce Greenstein; Yina Lu; Susan Miller; Frank P Mineo; Darrin Pruitt; Daniel S Ribaudo; Chris Ruhren; Steven H Silber; Lewis Soloff
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.845

9.  Effect of inhalation injury, burn size, and age on mortality: a study of 1447 consecutive burn patients.

Authors:  D L Smith; B A Cairns; F Ramadan; J S Dalston; S M Fakhry; R Rutledge; A A Meyer; H D Peterson
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  1994-10
  9 in total
  5 in total

1.  Clinical decision-support for acute burn referral and triage at specialized centres - Contribution from routine and digital health tools.

Authors:  Constance Boissin
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2022-12-31       Impact factor: 2.996

2.  Actionable, Revised (v.3), and Amplified American Burn Association Triage Tables for Mass Casualties: A Civilian Defense Guideline.

Authors:  Randy D Kearns; Amanda P Bettencourt; William L Hickerson; Tina L Palmieri; Paul D Biddinger; Colleen M Ryan; James C Jeng
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 1.845

3.  Predicting resource utilization in burn treatment.

Authors:  Sandra Taylor; Terese Curri; MaryBeth Lawless; Soman Sen; David G Greenhalgh; Tina L Palmieri
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.845

4.  Clinical features and mortality-related factors of extensive burns among young adults: the Kunshan disaster experience.

Authors:  Ying-Zi Huang; Guo-Zhong Lu; Hong-Sheng Zhao; Li-Jun Liu; Jun Jin; Yun-Fu Wu; Jian Wu; Fu-Li Zhao; Ning Liu; Wen-Ming Liu; Long Liu; Tuan-Jie Zhu; Er-Zhen Chen; Qin Gu; Hong-Wei Ye; Xiu-Ming Xi; Bin Du; Yang Yi; Hai-Bo Qiu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-09

5.  Introduction of a mass burn casualty triage system in a hospital during a powder explosion disaster: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Chip-Jin Ng; Shih-Hao You; I-Lin Wu; Yi-Ming Weng; Chung-Hsien Chaou; Cheng-Yu Chien; Chen-June Seak
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 5.469

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.