The objective of this study was to assess current practice patterns and attitudes toward pediatric sedation and analgesia in United States (US) burn centers for critically ill patients. Survey-based questionnaire was sent to 119 Directors at US burn centers that care for pediatric patients. Forty-one surveys (34%) were analyzed. 48.8% of responding centers mandate pediatric consultation for pediatric burn patients based on factors such as age and burn size. The most common sedation and analgesic agents used were midazolam, fentanyl, morphine, ketamine, and diphenhydramine. Written sedation policies exist at 63.4% of centers. 90.2% of centers employ scoring systems to guide agent titration. 60.9% of respondents practice sedation holidays "always" or "usually." 90.2% of centers perceive the medications they routinely use are "always" or "often" efficacious in pediatric sedation and analgesia. 53.7% of respondents reported the presence of withdrawal signs and symptoms in their patient population. The lack of consensus guidelines for sedation and analgesia delivery to pediatric intensive care unit patients results in practice variation. The majority of centers perceive their sedation and analgesia strategies to be efficacious despite the heavy reliance on propofol and midazolam, both of which have questionable safety profiles in critically ill children.

Due to the rapid developmental growth in preschool-aged children, more precise measurement of the effects of burns on child health outcomes is needed. Expanding upon the Shriners Hospitals for Children/American Burn Association Burn Outcome Questionnaire 0 to 5 (BOQ0–5), we developed a conceptual framework describing domains important in assessing recovery from burn injury among preschool-aged children (1–5 years). We developed a working conceptual framework based on the BOQ0–5, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine’s Model of Child Health, and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health for Children and Youth. We iteratively refined our framework based on a literature review, focus groups, interviews, and expert consensus meetings. Data were qualitatively analyzed using methods informed by grounded theory. We reviewed 95 pediatric assessments, conducted two clinician focus groups and six parent interviews, and consulted with 23 clinician experts. Three child health outcome domains emerged from our analysis: symptoms, functioning, and family. The symptoms domain describes parents’ perceptions of their child’s pain, skin-related discomfort, and fatigue. The functioning domain describes children’s physical functioning (gross and fine motor function), psychological functioning (internalizing, externalizing, and dysregulation behavior; trauma; toileting; resilience), communication and language development (receiving and producing meaning), and social functioning (connecting with family/peers, friendships, and play). The family domain describes family psychological and routine functioning outcomes.

No abstract

Background It is unknown whether lung-protective ventilation is applied in burn patients and whether they benefit from it. This study aimed to determine ventilation practices in burn intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the association between lung-protective ventilation and the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28). Methods This is an international prospective observational cohort study including adult burn patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (VT) was defined as VT ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum airway pressures were collected. The association between VT and VFD-28 was analyzed using a competing risk model. Ventilation settings were presented for all patients, focusing on the first day of ventilation. We also compared ventilation settings between patients with and without inhalation trauma. Results A total of 160 patients from 28 ICUs in 16 countries were included. Low VT was used in 74% of patients, median VT size was 7.3 [interquartile range (IQR) 6.2–8.3] mL/kg PBW and did not differ between patients with and without inhalation trauma (p = 0.58). Median VFD-28 was 17 (IQR 0–26), without a difference between ventilation with low or high VT (p = 0.98). All patients were ventilated with PEEP levels ≥5 cmH2O; 80% of patients had maximum airway pressures <30 cmH2O. Conclusion In this international cohort study we found that lung-protective ventilation is used in the majority of burn patients, irrespective of the presence of inhalation trauma. Use of low VT was not associated with a reduction in VFD-28. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02312869. Date of registration: 9 December 2014.