German, European or American burn guidelines - Is one superior to another?

Adequate medical care of severe burn injuries requires special organizational infrastructure and high educational standards, with an appropriate number of health care professionals. Guidelines were written by the German Society for Burn Treatment (DGV), the European Burns Association (EBA) and the American Burn Association (ABA) to assist with the delivery of such care. Current DGV (2010), EBA (2013) and ABA (2001/2006/2008) guidelines are compared, focusing on similarities, differences, conciseness and completeness. This publication presents advantages and disadvantages of each of them. DGV guidelines outline understandable treatment recommendations for first aid measures, clinical procedures and wound care. Extensive rehabilitation guidelines with clearly defined indications and precise infrastructure requirements for a Burn Centre are stated. Negative aspects are the presence of multiple documents containing redundant and confusing information. EBA guidelines offer the most comprehensive treatment recommendations with multidisciplinary approaches. Overall, infrastructural requirements are weighted much higher than staff qualification demands - in contrast to ABA guidelines. However, lack of conciseness and complicated criteria regarding transfer of patients to a Burn Center - including imprecise indications for rehabilitation treatment - have to be mentioned as disadvantages. ABA guidelines have a clear focus on staff qualifications and easy-to-understand transfer criteria. Another focus is on detailed clinical procedures. However, these guidelines lack burn definition and precise treatment recommendations for rehabilitation. The reviewed guidelines provide standardized treatment recommendations for burn patients. Despite their usefulness, they all have weaknesses and discrepancies. Findings should be used to improve each of them.