Search

Background: The "one-day-per-percent" rule states that for burn patients, one day of hospital stay can be expected for each percentage of burned body surface. This study aimed to test the rule's predictive value., Methods: The study is a register-based observational study on all burns treated in the Norwegian National Burn Center 2000-22. All children and adults admitted and actively treated in this period were included (2269 patients). Patients receiving palliative care were not included (55). Age when injured, sex, year of admittance, LOS (length of stay), %TBSA (total body surface area), discharged alive/dead, and palliative care: yes/no were extracted from the registry. Quantile regression was used to estimate the quantiles of LOS/%TBSA as a function of %TBSA., Results: For injuries < 15 %TBSA, the median LOS/%TBSA values were above 1.0, and the ratio increased as the injury size decreased. The median LOS/%TBSA values were close to 1.0 for patients with injuries ≥ 15 %TBSA (Table 2, Figure 2). The quantile regression analysis revealed a considerable spread in estimated values for both adults and children. Children had a lower median LOS/%TBSA than adults and a value below 1.0 for injuries 15-30 %TBSA. When survivors and non-survivors were compared, a higher median LOS/%TBSA was found for survivors with injuries > 60 %TBSA., Discussion: The "one-day-per-percent" rule does not seem applicable for injuries < 15 %TBSA. Even for more extensive injuries, the large spread in estimated values in different quantiles renders it poor at predicting length of hospital stay. There also seem to be many caveats when it is used to measure an institution's efficacy or when comparing different institutions., Conclusion: The predictive value of the "one-day-per-percent" rule is deficient when considering individual patients. It does not fit for injuries < 15 %TBSA, and the significant variation for patients with injuries of a similar extent renders it not viable as a forecasting tool., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The research received no funding. None of the authors have any conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The quality of burn care is highly dependent on the initial assessment and care. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the agreement of clinical assessment of burn depth and %TBSA between the referring units and the receiving burn centres., Methods: Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a PICO (patients, interventions, comparisons, outcomes). Relevant databases were searched using a predetermined search string (November 6th 2021). Data were extracted in a standardised fashion. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for test accuracy was used to assess the certainty of evidence. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of individual studies as 'high', 'low' or 'unclear'., Results: A total of 412 abstracts were retrieved and of these 28 studies with a total of 6461 patients were included, all reporting %TBSA and one burn depth. All studies were cross-sectional and most of them comprising retrospectively enrolled consecutive cohort. All studies showed a low agreement between %TBSA calculations made at referring units and at burn centres. Most studies directly comparing estimations of %TBSA at referring institutions and burn centers showed a proportion of overestimations of 50% or higher. The study of burn depth showed that 55% were equal to the estimates from the burn centre. Most studies had severe study limitations and the risk of imprecision was high. The overall certainty of evidence for accuracy of clinical estimations in referring centres is low (GRADE ⊕⊕ОО) for %TBSA and very low (GRADE ⊕ООО) for burn depth and resuscitation., Conclusion: Overestimation of %TBSA at referring hospitals occurs very frequently. The overall certainty of evidence for accuracy of clinical estimations in referring centres is low for burn size and very low for burn depth. The findings suggest that the burn community has a significant challenge in educating and communicating better with our colleagues at referring institutions and that high-quality studies are needed., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)