Search

Background The presence of an attending surgeon at all highest-level trauma activations is a requirement for American College of Surgeons-Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) verification for level I to III trauma centers. Programs must demonstrate compliance with this criterion at least 80% of the time. Documentation of compliance can increase administrative burden presenting an opportunity for automation. Objectives The aim of this quality improvement project was to compare surgeon arrival documentation rates obtained utilizing radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology with manual documentation. Methods This project was conducted at a single level-I trauma center. RFID badges were distributed to all trauma surgeons. Arrival times for surgeons using manual nursing documentation and RFID activation were collected from October 2017 through March 2018. Presence of appropriate documentation and attending arrival within 15 minutes of trauma activation were compared by documentation method: nursing manual documentation or RFID system. Results There were 98 code trauma activations included in the analysis over the 6-month period. Nursing documentation of trauma surgeon attendance occurred 83% of the time (n = 81), with 81% (n = 79) in compliance within 15 minutes of code trauma activation. RFID badges were activated 91% (n = 89) of the time, with 86% (n = 84) in compliance within 15 minutes. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of nursing documentation and RFID badge activation. Conclusion RFID technology is a reliable, complementary method of documenting compliance for trauma surgeon attendance. Trauma centers searching for technological solutions to address compliance with ACS-COT guidelines and to reduce administrative burden may consider the use of RFID technology.

BACKGROUND: Geography is an important yet underexplored factor that may influence the care and outcomes of burn survivors. This study aims to examine the impact of geography on physical and psychosocial function after burn injury. METHODS: Data from the Burn Model Systems National Database (1997–2015) were analyzed. Individuals 18 years and older who were alive at discharge were included. Physical and psychosocial functions were assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months postinjury using the following patient-reported outcome measures: Community Integration Questionnaire, Physical Composite Scale and Mental Composite Scale of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, Satisfaction with Appearance Scale, and Satisfaction with Life Scale. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and medical data, and mixed regression models were used to assess the impact of geography on long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The study included 469 burn survivors from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regions 10, 31 from region 8, 477 from region 6, 267 from region 3, and 41 from region 1. Participants differed significantly by region in terms of race/ethnicity, burn size, burn etiology, and acute care length of stay (P < 0.001). In adjusted mixed model regression analyses, scores of all 5 evaluated outcome measures were found to differ significantly by region (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Several long-term physical and psychosocial outcomes of burn survivors vary significantly by region. This variation is not completely explained by differences in population characteristics. Understanding these geographical differences may improve care for burn survivors and inform future policy and resource allocation.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are useful for understanding the health needs and outcomes of the general public. We aim to develop a burn-specific metric-Adult Burn Outcome Questionnaire (ABOQ)-that is brief and can be administered electronically to all burn survivors over the age of 18. The 14-item ABOQ was developed from the already validated Young Adult Burn Outcome Questionnaire (YABOQ) long form. The ABOQ questionnaire, along with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System-10 (PROMIS-10), was administered to 120 outpatient burn survivors at three hospitals. Clinical validity of the ABOQ was measured by testing associations between ABOQ items and burn size, the PROMIS-10 generic items and composite scales using correlational analysis including multivariate canonical analysis. Nine out of 14 ABOQ items were significantly correlated with burn size (correlations ranging from -0.25 to -0.46, P < .01). The canonical correlation between ABOQ and burn size was 0.68 (P = .0002). The overall canonical correlation between two instruments was also significant (P < .0001). At the item level, at least 25% of the variation in each of the five ABOQ items could be explained by PROMIS-10 items and composite scores, while six other items could only be accounted for by less than 15% of the variation. ABOQ short form assessment can be used to efficiently measure burn outcomes across a range of relevant clinical domains with credible validity. A large proportion of the variation in ABOQ scores was not accounted for by PROMIS-10, suggesting that ABOQ provided additional health-related information specifically for the burn population beyond the generic instrument.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in long-term social reintegration outcomes for burn survivors with and without peer support attendance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community-dwelling burn survivors. PARTICIPANTS: Burn survivors (N = 601) aged ≥18 years with injuries to ≥5% total body surface area (TBSA) or burns to critical areas (hands, feet, face, or genitals). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Profile was used to examine the following previously validated 6 scale scores of social participation: Family and Friends, Social Interactions, Social Activities, Work and Employment, Romantic Relationships, and Sexual Relationships. RESULTS: Burn support group attendance was reported by 330 (55%) of 596 respondents who responded to this item. Attendees had larger burn size (43.4%±23.6% vs 36.8%±23.4% TBSA burned, P10 years from injury (50% vs 42.5%, P