Krishan Joseph1, Abhishek Trehan2, Meena Cherian3, Edward Kelley4, David A Watters5. 1. General Surgery, Wexham Park Hospital, Berkshire, UK. krishanjoseph@googlemail.com. 2. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK. 3. Emergency & Essential Surgical Care Program, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Service Delivery and Safety, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Surgery, Deakin University and Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether acute burn management (ABM) is available at health facilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHOD: The study used the World Health Organization situational analysis tool (SAT) which is designed to assess emergency and essential surgical care and includes data points relevant to the acute management of burns. The SAT was available for 1413 health facilities in 59 countries. RESULTS: A majority (1036, 77.5 %) of the health facilities are able to perform ABM. The main reasons for the referral of ABM are lack of skills (53.4 %) and non-functioning equipment (52.2 %). Considering health centres and district/rural/community hospitals that referred due to lack of supplies/drugs and/or non-functioning equipment, almost half of the facilities were not able to provide continuous and consistent access to the equipment required either for resuscitation or to perform burn wound debridement. Out of the facilities that performed ABM, 379 (36.6 %) are capable of carrying out skin grafts and contracture release, which is indicative of their ability to manage full thickness burns. However the magnitude of full thickness burns managed was limited in half of these facilities, as they did not have access to a blood bank. CONCLUSION: The initial management of acute burns is generally available in LMICs, however it is constrained by the inability to perform resuscitation (19 %) and/or burn wound debridement (10 %). For more severe burns, an inability to perform skin grafting or contracture release limits definitive management of full thickness burns, whilst lack of availability to blood further compromises the treatment of major burns.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether acute burn management (ABM) is available at health facilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHOD: The study used the World Health Organization situational analysis tool (SAT) which is designed to assess emergency and essential surgical care and includes data points relevant to the acute management of burns. The SAT was available for 1413 health facilities in 59 countries. RESULTS: A majority (1036, 77.5 %) of the health facilities are able to perform ABM. The main reasons for the referral of ABM are lack of skills (53.4 %) and non-functioning equipment (52.2 %). Considering health centres and district/rural/community hospitals that referred due to lack of supplies/drugs and/or non-functioning equipment, almost half of the facilities were not able to provide continuous and consistent access to the equipment required either for resuscitation or to perform burn wound debridement. Out of the facilities that performed ABM, 379 (36.6 %) are capable of carrying out skin grafts and contracture release, which is indicative of their ability to manage full thickness burns. However the magnitude of full thickness burns managed was limited in half of these facilities, as they did not have access to a blood bank. CONCLUSION: The initial management of acute burns is generally available in LMICs, however it is constrained by the inability to perform resuscitation (19 %) and/or burn wound debridement (10 %). For more severe burns, an inability to perform skin grafting or contracture release limits definitive management of full thickness burns, whilst lack of availability to blood further compromises the treatment of major burns.
Authors: John G Meara; Andrew J M Leather; Lars Hagander; Blake C Alkire; Nivaldo Alonso; Emmanuel A Ameh; Stephen W Bickler; Lesong Conteh; Anna J Dare; Justine Davies; Eunice Dérivois Mérisier; Shenaaz El-Halabi; Paul E Farmer; Atul Gawande; Rowan Gillies; Sarah L M Greenberg; Caris E Grimes; Russell L Gruen; Edna Adan Ismail; Thaim Buya Kamara; Chris Lavy; Lundeg Ganbold; Nyengo C Mkandawire; Nakul P Raykar; Johanna N Riesel; Edgar Rodas; John Rose; Nobhojit Roy; Mark G Shrime; Richard Sullivan; Stéphane Verguet; David Watters; Thomas G Weiser; Iain H Wilson; Gavin Yamey; Winnie Yip Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: David Griggs; Mark Stafford-Smith; Owen Gaffney; Johan Rockström; Marcus C Ohman; Priya Shyamsundar; Will Steffen; Gisbert Glaser; Norichika Kanie; Ian Noble Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Hayley Osen; David Chang; Shelly Choo; Henry Perry; Afua Hesse; Francis Abantanga; Colin McCord; Kristin Chrouser; Fizan Abdullah Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Rele Ologunde; Joshua P Vogel; Meena N Cherian; Mariam Sbaiti; Mario Merialdi; James Yeats Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Janos Cambiaso-Daniel; Victoria G Rontoyanni; Guillermo Foncerrada; Anthony Nguyen; Karel D Capek; Paul Wurzer; Jong O Lee; Gabriel Hundeshagen; Charles D Voigt; Ludwik K Branski; Celeste C Finnerty; David N Herndon Journal: Burns Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: John Whitaker; Nollaig O'Donohoe; Max Denning; Dan Poenaru; Elena Guadagno; Andrew J M Leather; Justine I Davies Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-05