ABSTRACT
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has raised global awareness of healthcare resource limitations. Specifically, the pandemic has demonstrated that burn disaster planning should involve non-burn disasters that threaten staff, supplies, or space. The ABA facilitated bed counts with the assistance of regional disaster coordinators from April through August of 2020. Our analysis examines the impact of the pandemic on burn surge and bed capacity in the U.S. Methods Bed availability was obtained by the ABA regional disaster coordinators through an initiative by the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care Committee. Bed availability was defined as immediately available burn beds and categorized as adult, pediatric, or flexible. Surge capacity was defined as the maximum number of patients that a burn center could admit in a surge situation. Data was deidentified by the central office with descriptive statistics to determine bed availability and surge capacity trends regionally and nationally. Results Bed counts were performed 6 times from 04/17/2020 through 08/14/2020. Response rates from the 137 North American burn centers varied from 86–96%. At least 6 burn centers (5%) were either closed or converted for COVID patients during the initial two bed counts. The total number of adult or pediatric burn beds was 2,082. Total bed availability decreased from 845 at the first survey down to 572 beds at the last survey. Surge capacity baseline was 1,668 beds and decreased from 1,132 beds in the initial survey down to 833 beds in the final survey. Conclusions Our study demonstrates a significant impact on burn bed availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic with a 37% reduction in available burn beds from April to August and a 26% reduction in surge capacity. This study demonstrates a substantial reduction in bed availability during the pandemic with additional analysis in process to examine regional trends.
ABSTRACT
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread effects on healthcare and society at large. There are limited data on the impact of the pandemic on the long-term recovery of the burn survivor. This study aims to compare physical and psychosocial outcomes of the burn survivor population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Data from the Burn Model System National Database (2015-present) were analyzed. Data were divided into pre- and during-pandemic groups (before and after March 1st, 2020). Outcomes were compared at four cross-sectional time points: 6, 12, 24, and 60 months after burn injury. The following patient reported outcome measures were examined: SF-12 Health Survey, PROMIS-29, Post-Traumatic Growth Indicator, Community Integration Questionnaire, Patient Civilian Checklist, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Burn Specific Health Scale, NeuroQOL Stigma, 4-D Itch, and CAGE Questionnaire (drug/alcohol misuse). Given the cross-sectional design, potential differences in clinical and demographic characteristics were examined for each group at each time point. Adjusted mean outcome scores at each time point were compared between groups using a two stage multi-variable regression model with propensity score matching. For each time point, subjects from each group were matched. The propensity score was calculated using the following matching variables: gender, age, race, ethnicity, etiology, length of stay, and burn size. The mean score difference of outcomes within each matched sample was examined. Results Sample sizes varied by time point with a range from 420 at 6 months to 94 at 60 months. The during-COVID group comprised 10% of the total sample size. There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups at any time point. There were no significant differences between the groups in adjusted mean outcome scores across the different time points. Conclusions This preliminary examination showed no differences in myriad long-term outcomes at multiple time points after injury among burn survivors before and during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results may suggest an element of resilience, however given the sample size and cross-sectional limitations further investigation is required to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the burn population.