Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study

Davies, Anna; Teare, Louise; Falder, Sian; Coy, Karen; Dumville, Jo C; Collins, Declan; Moore, Luke; Dheansa, Baljit; Jenkins, A. Toby A.; Booth, Simon; Agha, Riaz; Shah, Mamta; Marlow, Karen; Young, Amber

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026056

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An iterative mixed methods study using the Core Outcome Measures Trials (COMET) initiative methodology (chosen because of its structuralized method to develop a consensus based core set) [17][18][19]. The study was conducted by the independent Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research in close cooperation with the Dutch Society for Pediatrics, the Dutch Society for Nursing, and Dutch Foundation Child & Hospital.…”

Section: Design and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the national Dutch PEWS: the challenge against heterogeneity and implementation difficulties of PEWS in the Netherlands

Fuijkschot,

Stevens,

Teheux

et al. 2023

BMC Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background For the early recognition of deteriorating patients several Pediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) systems have been developed with the assumption that early detection can prevent further deterioration. Although PEWS are widely being used in hospitals in the Netherlands, there is no national consensus on which score to use and how to embed the score into a PEWS system. This resulted in a substantial heterogeneity of PEWS systems, of which many are unvalidated or self-designed. The primary objective of this study was to develop a pragmatic consensus-based PEWS system that can be utilized in all Dutch hospitals (University Medical Centers, teaching hospitals, and general hospitals). Methods This study is an iterative mixed-methods study. The methods from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative were used and consisted of two Delphi rounds, two inventories set out to all Dutch hospitals and a focus group session with parents. The study was guided by five expert meetings with different stakeholders and a final consensus meeting that resulted in a core PEWS set. Results The first Delphi round was completed by 292 healthcare professionals, consisting of pediatric nurses and physicians. In the second Delphi round 217 healthcare professionals participated. Eventually, the core PEWS set was been developed comprising of the parameters work of breathing, respiratory rate, oxygen therapy, heart rate and capillary refill time, and AVPU (Alert, Verbal, Pain, and Unresponsive). In addition, risk stratification was added to the core set with standardized risk factors consisting of [1] worried signs from healthcare professionals and parents and [2] high-risk treatment, with the option to add applicable local defined risk factors. Lastly, the three categories of risk stratification were defined (standard, medium, and high risk) in combination with standardized actions of the professionals for each category. Conclusion This study demonstrates a way to end a country’s struggle with PEWS heterogeneity by co-designing a national Dutch PEWS system. Currently, the power of the system is being investigated in a large multi-center study in the Netherlands.

show abstract

Section: Design and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the national Dutch PEWS: the challenge against heterogeneity and implementation difficulties of PEWS in the Netherlands

Fuijkschot,

Stevens,

Teheux

et al. 2023

BMC Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The protocol for the Icon-B study was registered on the PROSPERO database and has been published (Reference CRD42018096647) [22]. Changes to this protocol are justified in this article.…”

Section: Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The threshold for items to be carried through to the second round and expert panel meeting WAS pre-specified [22]. Items were carried through to a second round of the survey if 75% of participants stated that they used the indicator to diagnose BWI as part of their everyday practice (Question 1).…”

Section: Dropping and Modification Of Items Between Survey Roundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus demonstrates four indicators needed to standardize burn wound infection reporting across trials in a single-country study (ICon-B study)

Davies

Teare

Falder

et al. 2020

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based interventions are needed to treat burn wound infection (BWI). Evidence syntheses have been limited by heterogeneity of indicators used to report BWI across trials. Consistent reporting of BWI would be facilitated by an agreed minimum set of indicators. The Infection Consensus in Burns study aimed to achieve expert consensus about a core indicator set (CIS) for BWI. Methods: The CIS was established through development of a long list of BWI indicators identified from a systematic review and expert input. In a Delphi survey, UK expert participants rated the indicators according to use in everyday practice, importance for diagnosis and frequency of observation in patients with BWI. Indicators were included in

show abstract

Consensus on the treatment of second-degree burn wounds (2024 edition)

Ji,

Xiao,

Xia

2024

Burns &Amp; Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Second-degree burns are the most common type of burn in clinical practice and hard to manage. Their treatment requires not only a consideration of the different outcomes that may arise from the dressing changes or surgical therapies themselves but also an evaluation of factors such as the burn site, patient age and burn area. Meanwhile, special attention should be given to the fact that there is no unified standard or specification for the diagnosis, classification, surgical procedure, and infection diagnosis and grading of second-degree burn wounds. This not only poses great challenges to the formulation of clinical treatment plans but also significantly affects the consistency of clinical studies. Moreover, currently, there are relatively few guidelines or expert consensus for the management of second-degree burn wounds, and no comprehensive and systematic guidelines or specifications for the treatment of second-degree burns have been formed. Therefore, we developed the Consensus on the Treatment of Second-Degree Burn Wounds (2024 edition), based on evidence-based medicine and expert opinion. This consensus provides specific recommendations on prehospital first aid, nonsurgical treatment, surgical treatment and infection treatment for second-degree burns. The current consensus generated a total of 58 recommendations, aiming to form a standardized clinical treatment plan.

show abstract

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Development of the national Dutch PEWS: the challenge against heterogeneity and implementation difficulties of PEWS in the Netherlands

Development of the national Dutch PEWS: the challenge against heterogeneity and implementation difficulties of PEWS in the Netherlands

Consensus demonstrates four indicators needed to standardize burn wound infection reporting across trials in a single-country study (ICon-B study)

Consensus on the treatment of second-degree burn wounds (2024 edition)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About