A systematic review of intervention studies demonstrates the need to develop a minimum set of indicators to report the presence of burn wound infection.

INTRODUCTION: Burn wound infections result in delayed healing and increased pain, scarring, sepsis risk and healthcare costs. Clinical decision making about burn wound infection should be supported by evidence syntheses. Validity of evidence from systematic reviews may be reduced if definitions of burn wound infectionvary between trials. This review aimed to determine whether burn wound infectionis defined, and whether there is variation in the indicators used to define burn wound infectionacross studies testing interventions for patients with burns. METHOD: Searches were carried out in four databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Register of Trials) to identify studies evaluating interventions for patients with burns and reporting a burn wound infection outcome. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were systematically applied to select relevant studies. Data were systematically extracted and reported narratively. RESULTS: 2056 studies were identified, of which 72 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 71 unique datasets. 52.1% of studies were randomised controlled trials. Twenty-eight (38.0%) studies reporting a burn wound infection outcome did not report how they had defined it. In the methods of included studies, 59 studies (83.1%) reported that they planned to measure burn wound infection as an outcome. Of these, 44 studies (74.6%) described how they had defined burn wound infection; 6 studies (13.6%) reported use of a previously developed consensus-informed definition of burn wound infection, and 41 studies (69.5%) described the specific indicators used to define it. Studies used between one (11 studies; 26.8%) and nine indicators (2 studies; 4.9%) to define burn wound infection (median = 3, inter-quartile range = 2). The most commonly used indicator was presence of bacteria in the wound (61.0% of studies). Only 13 studies (31.7%) defined burn wound infection using the same indicators as at least one other study. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Within intervention studies reporting burn wound infection outcomes, a definition of this outcome is commonly not provided, or it varies between studies. This will prevent evidence synthesis to identify effective treatments for patients with burn injuries. Since there is no objective method for assessing burn wound infection, expert consensus is needed to agree a minimum set of indicators (Core Indicator Set) reported in all trials reporting burn wound infection as an outcome.

Exploring the acceptability of using low-friction bedding for patients with burns: Qualitative results from the SILKIE study.

BACKGROUND: Skin grafts following deep burns are needed to ensure healing. Grafts that fail and require re-grafting cause significant distress to patients and additional costs for the NHS. Shearing, which leads to graft loss, may be reduced through the use of low-friction bedding. A feasibility study was conducted to assess proof of concept for the use of low-friction bedding for patients with burns. Patient, parent and staff views on the acceptability of this material were explored through semi-structured interviews. METHOD: Patient views were gathered through telephone interviews (n=17; 11 adult patients and 6 parents of child patients). One patient completed the questionnaire in written form because of hearing difficulties. Staff views were gathered at two time points: at the start of the study through open-ended questionnaires (n=20) and at the end of the study through focus group (n=12) and telephone interviews (n=3). Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified describing both patient and staff views of the sheets: Slippery feel of the sheets; leaking wounds and sheet changes; and movement and friction. Overall patients' views of the sheets were positive; they were comfortable to use the sheets and experienced reduced pain and itching. However, issues related to the slipperiness were highlighted. Staff views were largely negative because of difficulty in use, lack of absorbency, and increased workload. CONCLUSION: The use of low-friction bedding is acceptable to patients undergoing a skin graft following a burn injury; however, problems related to sliding down the bed and soiling of sheets need addressing. Staff were supportive of the concept of low-friction bedding; however, they reported significant challenges in day-to-day use of sheets. Low-friction bedding presents a promising alternative to standard cotton sheets for patients with burns and those at risk of pressure sores; however, further work is needed to address current challenges in use.

The management of small area burns and unexpected illness after burn in children under five years of age - A costing study in the English healthcare setting.

The objective of this economic study was to evaluate the resource use and cost associated with the management of small area burns, including the additional costs associated with unexpected illness after burn in children of less than five years of age. This study was conducted as a secondary analysis of a multi-centre prospective observational cohort study investigating the physiological response to burns in children. 452 children were included in the economic analysis (median age=1.60years, 61.3% boys, median total burn surface area [TBSA]=1.00%) with a mean length of stay of 0.69 days. Of these children, 21.5% re-presented to medical care with an unexpected illness within fourteen days of injury. The cost of managing a burn of less than 10% TBSA in a child less than five years of age was £785. The additional cost associated with the management of illness after burn was £1381. A generalised linear regression model was used to determine the association between an unexpected illness after burn, presenting child characteristics and NHS cost. Our findings may be of value to those planning economic evaluations of novel technologies in burn care.