Introduction Burn wound depth assessments are an important component of determining patient prognosis and making appropriate management decisions. Clinical appraisal of the burn wound by an experienced burn surgeon is standard of care but has limitations. IR thermography is a technology in burn care that can provide a non-invasive, quantitative method of evaluating burn wound depth. IR thermography utilizes a specialized camera that can capture the infrared emissivity of the skin, and the resulting images can be analyzed to determine burn depth and healing potential of a burn wound. Though IR thermography has great potential for burn wound assessment, its use for this has not been well documented. Thus, we have conducted a systematic review of the current use of IR thermography to assess burn depth and healing potential. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar between June 2020-December 2020 using the following keywords: FLIR, FLIR ONE, thermography, forward looking infrared, thermal imaging + burn*, burn wound assessment, burn depth, burn wound depth, burn depth assessment, healing potential, burn healing potential. A meta-analysis was performed on the mean sensitivity and specificity of the ability of IR thermography for predicting healing potential. Inclusion criteria were articles investigating the use of IR thermography for burn wound assessments in adults and pediatric patients. Reviews and non-English articles were excluded. Results A total of 19 articles were included in the final review. Statistically significant correlations were found between IR thermography and laser doppler imaging (LDI) in 4/4 clinical studies. A case report of a single patient found that IR thermography was more accurate than LDI for assessing burn depth. Five articles investigated the ability of IR thermography to predict healing time, with four reporting statistically significant results. Temperature differences between burnt and unburnt skin were found in 2/2 articles. IR thermography was compared to clinical assessment in five articles, with varying results regarding accuracy of clinical assessment compared to thermography. Mean sensitivity and specificity of the ability of IR thermography to determine healing potential <15 days was 44.5 and 98.8 respectively. Mean sensitivity and specificity of the ability of FLIR to determine healing potential <21 days was 51.2 and 77.9 respectively. Conclusion IR thermography is an accurate, simple, and cost-effective method of burn wound assessment. FLIR has been demonstrated to have significant correlations with other methods of assessing burns such as LDI and can be utilized to accurately assess burn depth and healing potential.

Post-discharge services, such as outpatient wound care, may affect long term health outcomes and post-recovery quality of life. Access to these services may vary according to insurance status and ability to withstand out-of-pocket expenses. Our objective was to compare discharge location between burn patients who were uninsured, publicly insured, or privately insured at the time of their burn unit admissions. A retrospective review from July 1, 2015 to November 1, 2019 was performed at an ABA-verified burn center. All inpatient burn admission patients were identified and categorized according to insurance payer type. The primary outcome was discharge location, and secondary outcomes included readmission and outpatient burn care attendance. In total, 284 uninsured, 565 publicly insured and 293 privately insured patients were identified. There were no significant differences in TBSA (P=0.3), inhalation injury (P=0.3), ICU days (P=0.09), or need for grafting (P=0.1). For primary outcome, uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged without ancillary services(P<0.0001). Publicly insured patients were more likely to receive skilled nursing care (P=0.0007). Privately insured patients were more likely to receive homecare (P=0.0005) or transfer for ongoing inpatient care (P<0.0001). There was no difference in burn unit readmission (P=0.5); uninsured were more likely to follow up with outpatient burn clinic after discharge (P=0.004). Uninsured patients were less likely to receive post-discharge resources. Uninsured patients receive fewer post-discharge wound care resources which could result in suboptimal long-term results, and diminished return to pre-injury functional status. Increased access to post-discharge resources will provide comprehensive care to more patients.

Introduction Post-discharge services, such as outpatient wound care, may affect long term health outcomes and post-recovery quality of life. Access to these services may vary according to insurance status and ability to withstand out-of-pocket expenses. Our objective was to compare discharge location between burn patients who were uninsured, publicly insured, or privately insured at the time of their burn unit admissions. We hypothesized that uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged to locations with fewer wound care resources. Methods A retrospective review from July 1, 2015 to November 1, 2019 was performed at an ABA-verified burn center. All inpatient burn admission patients were identified and categorized according to insurance payer type. Patient and burn characteristics were recorded. The primary outcome was discharge location, and secondary outcomes included readmission and outpatient burn care attendance. Results In total, 284 uninsured, 565 publicly insured and 293 privately insured patients were identified. There were no significant differences in TBSA (P=0.3), presence of full thickness burn (P=0.3), inhalation injury (P=0.3), ICU days (P=0.09), ventilator days (P=0.2), or need for grafting (P=0.1). Uninsured patients were found to be younger (P< 0.0001) and more likely to be male (P=0.03). For primary outcome, uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged without ancillary services (self-care) (80.3% vs. 66.7% vs. 66.9%, P< 0.0001). Publicly insured patients were more likely to receive skilled nursing care (1.1% vs. 6.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.0007). Privately insured patients were more likely to receive homecare (3.2% vs. 5.8% vs. 10.9%, P=0.0005) or transfer to other institutions for ongoing inpatient care (2.5% vs. 5.1% vs. 11.6%, P< 0.0001). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in burn unit readmission (P=0.5) while uninsured were more likely to follow up in the same institution’s outpatient burn clinic after discharge (82.4% vs. 72.0% vs. 75.4%, P=0.004). Conclusions Despite no differences in burn injury severity, uninsured patients were less likely to receive post-discharge resources. However, these patients were younger, which may partially explain their disproportionate discharge to self-care. Nevertheless, insured patients have greater access to non-emergent medical resources and a broader range of treatment options. Although there were no significant differences in hospital readmission, the long-term implication to differential post-discharge care is unknown. Additional studies are needed to better elucidate if discrepancies in long-term wound healing or perceived quality of life amongst these populations exist.

No abstract