Literature DB >> 28009696

Quantitative Analysis of Estimated Burn Size Accuracy for Transfer Patients.

Joseph Robert Armstrong1, Luke Willand, Beverly Gonzalez, Jasmin Sandhu, Michael J Mosier.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to quantify differences between estimated TBSA from referring hospitals vs calculated TBSA in the burn unit in regards to several variables. We conducted a retrospective review of 735 burn patients admitted over a 17-month period. Three hundred twenty-six patients fit the criteria of transfers with recorded %TBSA estimations from referring hospitals. Referring %TBSA was compared with actual %TBSA, and the difference was expressed as a percentage of actual %TBSA. This was then used to group referring estimations as underestimated (less than -25%), satisfactory (-25 to 25%), or overestimated (greater than 25%). A paired t-test was used to assess the paired differences for significance. Secondary variables were then assessed between groups. When assessing associations of these clinical measures, a one-way analysis of variance was used for continuous variables and Pearson's χ test or Fisher's exact test was used. Of the 326 patients analyzed, 13 were underestimated, 63 were satisfactory, and 250 were overestimated. The ratio of overestimation to underestimation exceeded 19:1 and the ratio of overestimation to satisfactory estimation was nearly 4:1, with a statistically significant difference in referred %TBSA and actual %TBSA (P < .0001). Within the over and underestimated groups, there were significant differences between referred %TBSA and actual %TBSA (P < .0001). Larger burns were more accurately estimated (P < .0001). There are significant inaccuracies between referring hospital estimated %TBSA and actual %TBSA, which consistently and grossly skew toward overestimation. Inaccuracy in burn size estimation is systemic and can affect patient care and burn unit efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28009696     DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000460

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


  4 in total

1.  Burn Injury-Associated MHCII+ Immune Cell Accumulation Around Lymphatic Vessels of the Mesentery and Increased Lymphatic Endothelial Permeability Are Blocked by Doxycycline Treatment.

Authors:  Walter E Cromer; Scott D Zawieja; Karen M Doersch; Hayden Stagg; Felicia Hunter; Binu Tharakan; Ed Childs; David C Zawieja
Journal:  Lymphat Res Biol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 2.589

2.  Updating the Burn Center Referral Criteria: Results From the 2018 eDelphi Consensus Study.

Authors:  Amanda P Bettencourt; Kathleen S Romanowski; Victor Joe; James Jeng; Jeffrey E Carter; Robert Cartotto; Christopher K Craig; Renata Fabia; Gary A Vercruysse; William L Hickerson; Yuk Liu; Colleen M Ryan; John T Schulz
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 1.845

3.  Practical Computer Vision Application to Compute Total Body Surface Area Burn: Reappraising a Fundamental Burn Injury Formula in the Modern Era.

Authors:  Jeff Choi; Advait Patil; Edward Vendrow; Gavin Touponse; Layla Aboukhater; Joseph D Forrester; David A Spain
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 16.681

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.