BACKGROUND: The face is a very frequent site of burn injuries. This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial thus investigates the effectiveness of cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine in the treatment of facial burns compared with silver sulfadiazine.METHODS: Adult patients with acute facial burns admitted to Dutch burn centers were randomized to treatment with either cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine or silver sulfadiazine. Primary outcome was need for surgery and time to wound healing. Aesthetic and functional outcome was assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months after burn.RESULTS: From March of 2006 until January of 2009, 179 patients were randomized and 154 could be included. The two groups of patients (cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine group, n=78; silver sulfadiazine group, n=76), were comparable regarding sex, age, percentage total body surface area burned, and cause. During admission, four patients died, leaving 77 and 73 patients for primary analyses, respectively. Surgery was required in 13 (16.9 percent) compared with 15 patients (20.5 percent) (p=0.57; odds ratio, 0.8; 95 percent CI, 0.3 to 1.8), respectively. Median time to wound healing was 11.0 days in the cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine group (interquartile range, 7.0 to 15.0) and 9.0 days for silver sulfadiazine group (interquartile range, 5.0 to 15.75) (p=0.17). There were no significant differences in functional and aesthetic outcome.CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in effectiveness of both treatments. The vast majority of facial burns do not require surgery, and treatment with cerium nitrate-silver sulfadiazine and silver sulfadiazine leads to satisfactory outcome, both aesthetically and functionally.
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
Aims: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. Results: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. Conclusions: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.
MULTIFILE
