Development of a value-based healthcare burns core set for adult burn care.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is increasingly implemented in healthcare worldwide. Transparent measurement of the outcomes most important and relevant to patients is essential in VBHC, which is supported by a core set of most important quality indicators and outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a VBHC-burns core set for adult burn patients. METHODS: A three-round modified national Delphi study, including 44 outcomes and 24 quality indicators, was conducted to reach consensus among Dutch patients, burn care professionals and researchers. Items were rated on a nine-point Likert scale and selected if ≥ 70% in each group considered an item 'important'. Subsequently, instruments quantifying selected outcomes were identified based on a literature review and were chosen in a consensus meeting using recommendations from the Dutch consensus-based standard set and the Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities. Time assessment points were chosen to reflect the burn care and patient recovery process. Finally, the initial core set was evaluated in practice, leading to the adapted VBHC-burns core set. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients, 63 burn care professionals and 23 researchers participated. Ten outcomes and four quality indicators were selected in the Delphi study, including the outcomes pain, wound healing, physical activity, self-care, independence, return to work, depression, itching, scar flexibility and return to school. Quality indicators included shared decision-making (SDM), the number of patients receiving aftercare, determination of burn depth, and assessment of active range of motion. After evaluation of its use in clinical practice, the core set included all items except SDM, which are assessed by 9 patient-reported outcome instruments or measured in clinical care. Assessment time points included are at discharge, 2 weeks, 3 months, 12 months after discharge and annually afterwards. CONCLUSION: A VBHC-burns core set was developed, consisting of outcomes and quality indicators that are important to burn patients and burn care professionals. The VBHC-burns core set is now systemically monitored and analysed in Dutch burn care to improve care and patient relevant outcomes. As improving burn care and patient relevant outcomes is important worldwide, the developed VBHC-burns core set could be inspiring for other countries.

Outcomes that matter most to burn patients: A national multicentre survey study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes to improve burn care increases. Little is known on burn patients' views on what outcomes are most important, and about preferences regarding online Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Therefore, this study assessed what outcomes matter most to patients, and gained insights into patient preferences towards the use of online PROMs. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 years old), 3-36 months after injury completed a survey measuring importance of outcomes, separately for three time periods: during admission, short-term (<6 months) and long-term (6-24 months) after burn injury. Both open and closed-ended questions were used. Furthermore, preferences regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures in burn care were queried. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were included (response rate: 27%). 'Not having pain' and 'good wound healing' were identified as very important outcomes. Also, 'physical functioning at pre-injury level', 'being independent' and 'taking care of yourself' were considered very important outcomes. The top-ten of most important outcomes largely overlapped in all three time periods. Most patients (84%) had no problems with online questionnaires, and many (67%) indicated that it should take up to 15 minutes. Patients' opinions differed widely on the preferred frequency of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Not having pain and good wound healing were considered very important during the whole recovery of burns; in addition, physical functioning at pre-injury level, being independent, and taking care of yourself were deemed very important in the short and long-term. These outcomes are recommended to be used in burn care and research, although careful selection of outcomes remains crucial as patients prefer online questionnaires up to 15 minutes.

From qualitative data to a measurement instrument: A clarification and elaboration of choices made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0.

PURPOSE: To clarify and elaborate on the choices that were made in the development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 (POSAS 3.0), based upon the rich information obtained from patients during focus groups and pilot tests. METHODS: The discussions described in this paper are a reflection of the focus group study and pilot tests that were conducted in order to develop the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0. The focus groups took place in the Netherlands and Australia and included 45 participants. Pilot tests were performed with 15 participants in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: We discussed the selection, wording and merging of 17 included items. Additionally, the reason for exclusion of 23 characteristics are given. CONCLUSION: Based upon the unique and rich material of patient input obtained, two versions of the Patient Scale of the POSAS3.0 were developed: the Generic version, and the Linear scar version. The discussions and decisions taken during the development are informative for a good understanding of the POSAS 3.0 and are indispensable as a background for future translations and cross-cultural adaptations.

A clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of 3D technology for scar surface area measurement.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of scars has become an important outcome of burn care. Objective scar assessment through scar surface area measurement enables quantification of scar formation and evaluation of treatment efficacy. 3D technology has proven valid and reliable but often remains cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. 3D technology with depth sensors on mobile devices has become available and might surpass these limitations. This study provides a clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of a 3D system with a depth sensor for scar surface area measurement. METHODS: A technology involving a depth sensor mounted on a mobile device was used. Images and analyses were made with a custom-made software application. A standardized one-keyframe image capturing procedure was followed. To assess validity, stickers with predefined dimensions (8.01 cm2 - 77.70 cm2) were imaged in a single observer setting on various body parts of healthy volunteers. To assess reliability, hypertrophic scars, keloids, and normotrophic scars were imaged and rated by two observers independently. Data are expressed as mean (+/-SD), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and Limits of Agreements (LoA). RESULTS: Eighty stickers placed on 20 healthy volunteers showed validity with CV between 0.62%- 1.67% for observer A and 0.75%- 1.19% for observer B. For the reliability study, 69 scars on 36 patients were included. Mean scar surface area ranged from 0.83 cm2 to 155.59 cm2. Mean scar surface area measurement was 13.83 cm2 (SD 23.06) for observer A and 13.59 cm2 (SD 23.31) for observer B. Adjusted interobserver CV for trained observers is estimated as 5.59%, with corresponding LoA = 0 ± 0.15 x mean surface area. Interobserver ICCs were 0.99-1.00. CONCLUSION: This 3D technology with a depth sensor for measuring scar surface area provides valid and reliable data and thereby surpasses expensive and time-consuming 3D cameras.

Development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is widely used for measurements of scar quality. This encompasses visual, tactile and sensory characteristics of the scar. The Patient Scale of previous POSAS versions was lacking input from patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale with involvement of adults patients with all scar types, complying with the highest clinimetric standards. METHODS: From February 2018 to April 2019, a series of six focus group interviews were performed in the Netherlands and Australia to identify scar quality characteristics that adults with scars consider to be important. All focus groups were transcribed, anonymized and analysed using a thematic analysis. Relevant characteristics were formulated into items, resulting in a Dutch and English version of the Patient Scale. These drafts were pilot tested in Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and refined accordingly. RESULTS: A total of 21 relevant scar quality characteristics were identified during the focus groups. Two distinct versions of the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale were developed. The Generic version contains 16 items and can be used for all scar types, except linear scars. The Linear Scar version of the Patient Scale contains the same 16 items, with an extra item referring to the widening of scar margins. All included items are rated on a verbal rating scale with five response options. CONCLUSION: Two versions of the POSAS3.0 Patient Scale were developed. Further field tests are being performed to establish the measurement properties and scoring algorithm of the scales.

Facilitators & barriers and practices of early mobilization in critically ill burn patients: A survey.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization (EM) of intensive care (IC) patients is important but complex with facilitators and barriers. Compared to general IC patients, burn IC patients are more hyper-metabolic. They have extensive wounds, lengthy wound dressing changes, and repeated surgeries that may affect possibilities of EM. This study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers of EM in burn IC patients among all disciplines involved. Additionally, we assessed EM practices, i.e. when are which patients considered suitable for EM. METHODS: A survey was sent to 139 professionals involved in EM of burn IC patients (discipline groups: Intensivists, medical doctors, registered nurses, therapists). RESULTS: Response rate was 57 %. The majority found EM very important, yet different definitions were chosen. Perceived barriers mainly concerned patient-level factors, most frequently hemodynamic instability and excessive sedation followed by skin graft surgery, fatigue, and pain management. Most frequent barriers at the provider-level were limited staffing, safety concerns, and conflicting perceptions about the suitability of EM. At the institutional-level, we found no high barriers. Interdisciplinary variation on perceived barriers, when to initiate it, and permitted maximal activity were ascertained. CONCLUSION: Skin grafts and pain management were barriers of EM specific for burn care. Opinions on frequency, dosage and duration of EM varied widely. Improving interdisciplinary communication is key.

Management and outcome of burn injuries during pregnancy: A systematic review and presentation of a comprehensive guideline.

Pregnant women are a vulnerable subgroup of burn patients, due to altered physiological state and possible adverse effect on the fetus. The aim of this study was to develop a guideline for a tailored treatment of pregnant patients with burns to optimally treat both mother and fetus. This study consists of two parts: the first part contains a systematic review that presents a comprehensive overview of the literature on the management and outcome of pregnant women who sustain severe burn injuries and based on the results of this review, a guideline on the general, obstetric and burn management was developed and presented in the second part. A total of 35 studies including 1395 patients were included. Although the clinical outcomes seemed to be similar to non-pregnant patients, one study showed that mortality might be higher in the pregnant population. Predictive factors for maternal and fetal mortality were a total burned surface area of over 40% and inhalation injury. Early surgery may lead to a higher chance of survival of mother and fetus. A comprehensive guideline on the general management of pregnant patients with burns, obstetric management and specific burn management is provided. We encourage international burn organizations and guideline committees to use and evaluate the presented guideline.

Validity of laser speckle contrast imaging for the prediction of burn wound healing potential.

OBJECTIVE: To assess validity of Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging (LSCI) for the measurement of burn wound healing potential (HP) in a burn centre patient population, based on Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI) as reference standard. METHOD: A single-centre prospective observational cohort study was performed between September-December 2019. A total of 50 burns in 14 patients were included. Imaging and data collection were standardized. Correlation between LSCI and LDI flux values was tested. ROC curves were developed to test the discriminative ability of LSCI between LDI HP categories. RESULTS: Number of adults and children were equal. Mean total body surface area burnt was 5.5%. Main burn causes were scalds (64%) and flame burns (36%). LSCI set-up and imaging duration was 3 min and 10 s, respectively. LSCI was able to discriminate between wounds with early versus delayed HP (<14 versus ≥14 days) with sensitivity 71% and specificity 95% (p < 0.001). For HP ≤21 versus >21 days, similar sensitivity (74%) and specificity (95%) were found (p < 0.001). Correlations between LSCI and LDI flux values were moderate (<14 days) to absent (>21 days). CONCLUSION: LSCI shows good validity for the prediction of burn wound HP. It is a highly feasible, patient and physician friendly tool.

Doxepin cream is not effective in reducing itch in burn scar patients: A multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of doxepin hydrochloride 5% cream on reducing pruritus in burn scar patients compared to a placebo cream. METHOD: We conducted a multicenter triple-blind randomized clinical placebo-controlled crossover trial in which burn patients ≥18 years with an itch intensity ≥3 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were randomized between a doxepin-placebo or placebo-doxepin treatment protocol. Patients used each cream during two weeks with a wash-out period of one week in between. Primary outcome was change in itch intensity in two weeks' time using the VAS. Secondary outcome included the impact of itch (Burn Itch Questionnaire). Other parameters were the use of hydrating cream, silicon treatment, pressure garments, and other antipruritic medication. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included. The change in itch intensity (VAS) was not different during the doxepin and placebo period (p=0.994); neither the doxepin cream nor placebo cream reduced itch intensity. However, based on the Burn Itch Questionnaire, we observed a statistically significant decrease in itch intensity and improvement in impact scores in both treatment groups, but no difference in the degree of reduction between the groups. CONCLUSION: Doxepin cream was not effective in reducing pruritus in our burn patient study population.