Pediatric Burns - Who Requires Follow-up? A Study of Urban Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.5811/westjem.17984
Theodore Heyming, Andrea Dunkelman, David Gibbs, Chloe Knudsen-Robbins, John Schomberg, Armin Takallou, Bryan Lara, Brooke Valdez, Victor Joe
{"title":"Pediatric Burns - Who Requires Follow-up? A Study of Urban Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.","authors":"Theodore Heyming, Andrea Dunkelman, David Gibbs, Chloe Knudsen-Robbins, John Schomberg, Armin Takallou, Bryan Lara, Brooke Valdez, Victor Joe","doi":"10.5811/westjem.17984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hundreds of children suffer burn injuries each day, yet care guidelines regarding the need for acute inpatient treatment vs outpatient follow-up vs no required follow-up remain nebulous. This gap in the literature is particularly salient for the emergency clinician, who must be able to rapidly determine appropriate disposition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective review of patients presenting to a Level II pediatric trauma center, January 1, 2017-December 31, 2019, and discharged with an International Classification of Diseases, Rev 10, burn diagnosis. We obtained and analyzed demographics, burn characteristics, and follow-up data using univariate and bivariate analysis as well as logistic regression modeling. Patients were stratified into three outcome groups: group 1-patients who underwent emergent evaluation at a burn center or were admitted at their first follow-up appointment; group 2-patients who followed up at a burn center (as an outpatient) or at the emergency department (and were discharged home); and group 3-patients with no known follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 572 patients were included in this study; 58.9% of patients were 1-5 years of age. Sixty-five patients met group 1 criteria, 189 patients met group 2 criteria, and 318 patients met group 3 criteria. Sixty-five percent of patients met at least one American Burn Association criteria, and 79% of all burns were second-degree burns. Flame and scald burns were associated with increased odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, OR 1.12) of group 1 vs group 2 + group 3 (<i>P</i> = 0.02, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Second/third-degree burns and concern for non-accidental trauma were also associated with increased odds of group 1 vs 2 or 3 (OR = 1.11, 1.35, <i>P</i> ≤ 0.001, 0.001, respectively). Scald burns were associated with increased odds of group 2 compared to group 3 (OR 1.11, <i>P</i> = 0.04). Second/third degree burns were also associated with increased odds of group 2 vs 3 (OR 1.19, <i>P</i> ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There were few statistically significant variables strongly associated with group 1 (emergent treatment/admission) vs group 2 (follow-up/outpatient treatment) vs group 3 (no follow- up). However, one notable finding in this study was the association of scald burns with treatment (admission or follow-up) suggesting that the presence of a scald burn in a child may signify to clinicians that a burn center consult is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 4","pages":"634-644"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11254158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.17984","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Hundreds of children suffer burn injuries each day, yet care guidelines regarding the need for acute inpatient treatment vs outpatient follow-up vs no required follow-up remain nebulous. This gap in the literature is particularly salient for the emergency clinician, who must be able to rapidly determine appropriate disposition.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients presenting to a Level II pediatric trauma center, January 1, 2017-December 31, 2019, and discharged with an International Classification of Diseases, Rev 10, burn diagnosis. We obtained and analyzed demographics, burn characteristics, and follow-up data using univariate and bivariate analysis as well as logistic regression modeling. Patients were stratified into three outcome groups: group 1-patients who underwent emergent evaluation at a burn center or were admitted at their first follow-up appointment; group 2-patients who followed up at a burn center (as an outpatient) or at the emergency department (and were discharged home); and group 3-patients with no known follow-up.

Results: A total of 572 patients were included in this study; 58.9% of patients were 1-5 years of age. Sixty-five patients met group 1 criteria, 189 patients met group 2 criteria, and 318 patients met group 3 criteria. Sixty-five percent of patients met at least one American Burn Association criteria, and 79% of all burns were second-degree burns. Flame and scald burns were associated with increased odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, OR 1.12) of group 1 vs group 2 + group 3 (P = 0.02, P < 0.001). Second/third-degree burns and concern for non-accidental trauma were also associated with increased odds of group 1 vs 2 or 3 (OR = 1.11, 1.35, P ≤ 0.001, 0.001, respectively). Scald burns were associated with increased odds of group 2 compared to group 3 (OR 1.11, P = 0.04). Second/third degree burns were also associated with increased odds of group 2 vs 3 (OR 1.19, P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion: There were few statistically significant variables strongly associated with group 1 (emergent treatment/admission) vs group 2 (follow-up/outpatient treatment) vs group 3 (no follow- up). However, one notable finding in this study was the association of scald burns with treatment (admission or follow-up) suggesting that the presence of a scald burn in a child may signify to clinicians that a burn center consult is warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小儿烧伤--谁需要随访?对城市儿科急诊患者的研究。
导言:每天都有数以百计的儿童遭受烧伤,但关于急性住院治疗与门诊随访还是无需随访的护理指南仍然模糊不清。对于急诊临床医生来说,这一文献空白尤为突出,因为他们必须能够迅速确定适当的处置方法:这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象是 2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日到二级儿科创伤中心就诊、出院时诊断为国际疾病分类第 10 版烧伤的患者。我们使用单变量和双变量分析以及逻辑回归模型获取并分析了人口统计学、烧伤特征和随访数据。患者被分为三个结果组:第一组--在烧伤中心接受紧急评估或在首次复诊时入院的患者;第二组--在烧伤中心(门诊)或急诊科(出院回家)复诊的患者;第三组--没有已知复诊的患者:本研究共纳入了 572 名患者,其中 58.9% 的患者年龄在 1-5 岁之间。65名患者符合第1组标准,189名患者符合第2组标准,318名患者符合第3组标准。65%的患者至少符合一项美国烧伤协会标准,79%的烧伤为二度烧伤。火焰烧伤和烫伤与第 1 组与第 2 组+第 3 组的几率增加(几率比 [OR] 1.21,OR 1.12)有关(P = 0.02,P P ≤ 0.001,0.001,分别为 0.02、0.001、0.001)。与第 3 组相比,第 2 组发生烫伤的几率更高(OR 1.11,P = 0.04)。二度/三度烧伤也与第 2 组比第 3 组的几率增加有关(OR 1.19,P ≤ 0.001):结论:第 1 组(紧急治疗/入院)vs 第 2 组(随访/门诊治疗)vs 第 3 组(无随访)在统计学上几乎没有明显的相关变量。不过,本研究中一个值得注意的发现是烫伤与治疗(入院或随访)的关系,这表明儿童出现烫伤可能意味着临床医生需要到烧伤中心就诊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Prehospital Ultrasound Training on Simulated Paramedic Clinical Decision-Making. Interfacility Patient Transfers During COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed-Methods Study. Making A Difference: Launching a Multimodal, Resident-Run Social Emergency Medicine Program. Methadone Initiation in the Emergency Department for Opioid Use Disorder. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Sepsis in Adult Patients Meeting Two or More Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1