Knowledge about trends and epidemiology of pediatric burns is useful to identify patterns, to advance medical research, and to design prevention programs and resource allocation. The aim of this study is to describe the epidemiology and trends of pediatric burns between 2009 and 2022 in the three Dutch burn centers. A secondary objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pattern of pediatric burns. A register-based cohort study was conducted based on data from the Dutch Burn Repository R3. Patients between 0 and 17 years at the time of the burn injury admitted between 2009 and 2022 to one of the three burn centers were included. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate the incidence and patient, burn, and treatment characteristics. The COVID-19 pandemic years (2020–2021) were compared with the pooled results from pre-COVID-19 years (2017–2019). A total of 4017 patients were included in this study, of which 3085 (77%) were overnight admissions. The incidence and absolute number of pediatric burn admissions gradually increased over the years, with a small temporary decrease in 2020–2021. Patient and burn characteristics remained relatively consistent over the years. Three quarters of all patients were between 0 and 3 years old, and the majority were boys (59%). A decreasing ratio of length of stay per % total burned surface area and an increase in day admissions was observed since 2016 onwards, which intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: There was a slight increase in the number of pediatric admissions to the burn centers between 2009 and 2022. Young children (0–3 years) remain the most frequently affected group. A shorter relative length of stay was observed, as well as an increase in day admissions, which was reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Table presented.)
DOCUMENT
A growing interest in person-centered care from a biopsychosocial perspective has led to increased attention to structural screening. The aim of this study was to develop an easy-to-comprehend screening instrument using single items to identify a broad range of health-related problems in adult burn survivors. This study builds on earlier work regarding content generation. Focus groups and expert meetings with healthcare providers informed content refinement, resulting in the Aftercare Problem List (APL). The instrument consists of 43 items divided into nine health domains: scars, daily life functioning, scars treatment, body perceptions, stigmatization, intimacy, mental health, relationships, financial concerns, and a positive coping domain. The APL also includes a Distress Thermometer and a question inquiring about preference to discuss the results with a healthcare provider. Subsequently, the APL was completed by 102 outpatients. To test face validity, a linear regression analysis showed that problems in three health domains, i.e., scars, mental health, and body perceptions, were significantly related to higher distress. Qualitative results revealed that a minority found the items difficult which led to further adjustment of the wording and the addition of illustrations. In summation, this study subscribes to the validity of using single items to screen for burn-related problems.
DOCUMENT
For deep partial-thickness burns no consensus on the optimal treatment has been reached due to conflicting study outcomes with low quality evidence. Treatment options in high- and middle-income countries include conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed; and early excision and grafting. The majority of timing of surgery studies focus on survival rather than on quality of life. This study protocol describes a study that aims to compare long-term scar quality, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes between the treatment options. A multicentre prospective study will be conducted in the three Dutch burn centres (Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen). All adult patients with acute deep-partial thickness burns, based on healing potential with Laser Doppler Imaging, are eligible for inclusion. During a nine-month baseline period, standard practice will be monitored. This includes conservative treatment with dressings and topical agents, and excision and grafting of residual defects if needed 14–21 days post-burn. The subsequent nine months, early surgery is advocated, involving excision and grafting in the first week to ten days post-burn. The primary outcome compared between the two groups is long-term scar quality assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 twelve months after discharge. Secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes like quality of life and return to work. The aim of the study is to assess long-term scar quality in deep partial-thickness burns after conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed, compared to early excision and grafting. Adding to the ongoing debate on the optimal treatment of these burns. The broad range of studied outcomes will be used for the development of a decision aid for deep partial-thickness burns, to fully inform patients at the point of consent to surgery and support optimal person-centred care.
DOCUMENT
