Acute health care environments can be stressful settings with clinicians experiencing deleterious effects of burnout and compassion fatigue affecting their mental health. Subsequently, the quality of patient care and outcomes may be threatened if clinicians experience burnout or compassion fatigue. Therefore, the aim of this descriptive, cross-sectional study was to evaluate the prevalence of burnout and compassion fatigue among burn clinicians in Israel. Fifty-five clinicians from Burns, Plastics and Reconstruction Surgery and Intensive Care completed four validated surveys to assess burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory), depression (PRIME-MD), health-related quality of life (SF-8), and compassion fatigue (Professional Quality of Life version 5). Burn clinicians were compared with Plastics and Reconstruction Surgery and Intensive Care clinicians. This study identified a high prevalence of burnout (38.2%) among Intensive Care, Plastics and Reconstruction and Burns clinicians, with Burns clinicians having a greatly increased prevalence of burnout compared to Intensive Care clinicians (OR =24.3, P=0.017). Additional factors contributing to compassion fatigue were those without children (P=0.016), divorced (P=0.035), of a younger age (P=0.019), and a registered nurse (P=0.05). Burnout increased clinicians’ risk of adverse professional and personal outcomes and correlated with less free time (P<0.001), increased risk of experiencing work-home disputes (P=0.05), increased depression (P=0.001) and decreased career satisfaction (P=0.01). Burnout was also associated with higher physical (mean difference =3.8, P<0.001) and lower mental (mean difference =−3.5, P<0.001) Quality of Life scores. Caring for burn survivors can lead to burnout, compassion fatigue, and vicarious trauma. Identifying strategies to abate these issues is essential to ensure improved clinicial environments and patient outcomes.

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Hypertrophic and keloid scars still are among the banes of plastic surgery. In the treatment arsenal at the disposal of the plastic surgeon, topical silicone therapy usually is considered the first line of treatment or as an adjuvant to other treatment methods. Yet, knowledge concerning its mechanisms of action, clinical efficacy, and possible adverse effects is rather obscure and sometimes conflicting. This review briefly summarizes the existing literature regarding the silicone elastomer's mechanism of action on scars, the clinical trials regarding its efficacy, a description of some controversial points and contradicting evidence, and possible adverse effects of this treatment method. Topical silicone therapy probably will continue to be the preferred first-line treatment for hypertrophic scars due to its availability, price, ease of application, lack of serious adverse effects, and relative efficacy. Hopefully, future randomized clinical trials will help to clarify its exact clinical efficacy and appropriate treatment protocols to optimize treatment results.

No abstract