Multicenter assessment of burn team injury prevention knowledge.

Engaging burn professionals to utilize "teachable moments" and provide accurate fire safety and burn prevention (FSBP) education is essential in reducing injury incidence. Minimal data is available regarding burn clinicians' evidence-based FSBP knowledge. A committee of prevention professionals developed, pilot-tested, and distributed a 52-question online survey assessing six major categories: demographical information (n = 7); FSBP knowledge (n = 24); home FSBP practices (n = 6); burn center FSBP education (n = 7); self-assessed competence and confidence in providing FSBP education (n = 2); and improving ABA reach (n = 6). Responses with <50% completion of FSBP knowledge section were excluded. Total group's (TG) mean FSBP score of 61.5% was used to define and compare underperformers (UP). After excluding 36 incomplete responses, test scores ranged: TG (n = 427) 21-88% and UP (n = 183) 21-58%. Ten FSBP knowledge questions covering seven topics were incorrectly answered by >50% of TG. ANOVA showed self-reported competence and confidence in providing FSBP education were not good predictors of FSBP scores, but staff with <2 years experience scored lower. Over 90% of TG wants FSBP fact sheets for patient education. Burn professionals have a responsibility to educate patients, families, and communities on FSBP. Team members report competence and confidence in their ability to provide FSBP education. However, this multicenter survey demonstrates the need for professional training on best practices in injury prevention, specifically targeting knowledge gaps on: smoke alarms, fire-safe cigarettes, children's sleepwear, burn/fire epidemiology, fireworks, bathing/scald injuries, and residential sprinklers. Based on these findings, FSBP educational materials will be created.

School-based prevention program associated with increased short- and long-term retention of safety knowledge.

Validation of program effectiveness is essential in justifying school-based injury prevention education. Although Risk Watch (RW) targets burn, fire, and life safety, its effectiveness has not been previously evaluated in the medical literature. Between 2007 and 2012, a trained fire service public educator (FSPE) taught RW to all second grade students in one public school district. The curriculum was delivered in 30-minute segments for 9 consecutive weeks via presentations, a safety smoke house trailer, a model-sized hazard house, a student workbook, and parent letters. A written pre-test (PT) was given before RW started, a post-test (PT#1) was given immediately after RW, and a second post-test (PT#2) was administered to the same students the following school year (ranging from 12 to 13 months after PT). Students who did not complete the PT or at least one post-test were excluded. Comparisons were made by paired t-test, analysis of variance, and regression analysis. After 183 (8.7%) were excluded for missing tests, 1,926 remaining students scored significantly higher (P = .0001) on PT#1 (mean 14.8) and PT#2 (mean 14.7) than the PT (mean 12.1). There was 1 FSPE and 36 school teachers with class size ranging from 10 to 27 (mean 21.4). Class size was not predictive of test score improvement (R = 0%), while analysis of variance showed that individual teachers trended toward some influence. This 6-year prospective study demonstrated that the RW program delivered by an FSPE effectively increased short-term knowledge and long-term retention of fire/life safety in early elementary students. Collaborative partnerships are critical to preserving community injury prevention education programs.

Do burn centers provide juvenile firesetter intervention?

Juvenile firesetting activity accounts for a significant number of annual injuries and property damage, yet there is sparse information on intervention in the burn literature. To quantify juvenile firesetting intervention (JFSI) in burn centers, a 23-question survey was sent to all directors listed in the American Burn Association Burn Care Facilities Directory.Sixty-four out of 112 (57%) surveys were returned. This represents responses from 79% of currently verified burn centers. When queried on interventions provided to a juvenile firesetter admitted to their unit, 38% report having their own JFSI program and 38% refer the child to fire services. Two thirds of units without a JFSI program treat pediatric patients. Units that previously had a JFSI program report lack of staffing and funding as most common reasons for program discontinuation. Almost all (95%) stated that a visual tool demonstrating legal, financial, social, future, and career ramifications associated with juvenile firesetting would be beneficial to their unit. Many burn units that treat pediatric patients do not have JFSI and rely on external programs operated by fire services. Existing JFSI programs vary greatly in structure and method of delivery. Burn centers should be involved in JFSI, and most units would benefit from a new video toolkit to assist in providing appropriate JFSI. Study results highlight a need for burn centers to collaborate on evaluating effectiveness of JFSI programs and providing consistent intervention materials based on outcomes research.