Comfort with burn injury management among healthcare providers in a rural and remote region: a cross-sectional survey

Q3 Medicine
Darby Little , George Ho , Emily Pynn , Shahriar Shahrokhi , Margarita Elloso
{"title":"Comfort with burn injury management among healthcare providers in a rural and remote region: a cross-sectional survey","authors":"Darby Little ,&nbsp;George Ho ,&nbsp;Emily Pynn ,&nbsp;Shahriar Shahrokhi ,&nbsp;Margarita Elloso","doi":"10.1016/j.burnso.2025.100425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Rural and remote communities often rely on primary care providers to complete the initial management and referral of burn injuries. This study aimed to assess frontline providers’ comfort with the initial assessment and management of burn injuries in a rural and remote setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary and wound care providers across 10 healthcare facilities in Northwestern Ontario between August and December 2024. Self-reported comfort levels with 15 aspects of burn care were assessed using a five-point Likert scale. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare survey responses across practice characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty-nine providers participated, including family physicians (44 %), nurse practitioners (20 %), emergency physicians (10 %), and others. While 90 % saw at least one burn injury per year, only 42 % saw more than five. Most respondents reported comfort with tetanus prophylaxis (72 %) and burn first aid (66 %). However, fewer felt comfortable assessing burn size (31 %) or depth (27 %), initiating fluid resuscitation (27 %), or applying the American Burn Association guidelines for burn center transfer (24 %). Providers managing five or more burns annually reported significantly greater comfort across multiple domains (p &lt; 0.05). No significant differences were found between early- and late-career providers.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study demonstrates that providers working in a rural and remote region reported limited comfort with burn size and depth assessment, initiating fluid resuscitation, and applying burn center referral guidelines – important skills for initial injury management and referral. These findings highlight a need for system-level supports and educational resources for providers in regions remote from specialized burn centers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72486,"journal":{"name":"Burns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100425"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Burns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468912225000331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Rural and remote communities often rely on primary care providers to complete the initial management and referral of burn injuries. This study aimed to assess frontline providers’ comfort with the initial assessment and management of burn injuries in a rural and remote setting.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary and wound care providers across 10 healthcare facilities in Northwestern Ontario between August and December 2024. Self-reported comfort levels with 15 aspects of burn care were assessed using a five-point Likert scale. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare survey responses across practice characteristics.

Results

Fifty-nine providers participated, including family physicians (44 %), nurse practitioners (20 %), emergency physicians (10 %), and others. While 90 % saw at least one burn injury per year, only 42 % saw more than five. Most respondents reported comfort with tetanus prophylaxis (72 %) and burn first aid (66 %). However, fewer felt comfortable assessing burn size (31 %) or depth (27 %), initiating fluid resuscitation (27 %), or applying the American Burn Association guidelines for burn center transfer (24 %). Providers managing five or more burns annually reported significantly greater comfort across multiple domains (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between early- and late-career providers.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that providers working in a rural and remote region reported limited comfort with burn size and depth assessment, initiating fluid resuscitation, and applying burn center referral guidelines – important skills for initial injury management and referral. These findings highlight a need for system-level supports and educational resources for providers in regions remote from specialized burn centers.
农村和偏远地区医疗保健提供者烧伤管理舒适度:一项横断面调查
农村和偏远社区往往依赖初级保健提供者完成烧伤的初步管理和转诊。本研究旨在评估一线医护人员对农村和偏远地区烧伤的初步评估和管理的满意度。方法于2024年8月至12月对安大略省西北部10家医疗机构的初级和伤口护理提供者进行横断面调查。烧伤护理15个方面的自我报告舒适度采用李克特五点量表进行评估。使用Wilcoxon秩和检验来比较不同实践特征的调查结果。结果参与调查的医护人员59人,包括家庭医生44人( %)、执业护士20人( %)、急诊医生10人( %)等。90% %的人每年至少有一次烧伤,只有42% %的人每年有5次以上烧伤。大多数应答者报告对破伤风预防(72% %)和烧伤急救(66% %)感到满意。然而,很少有人对评估烧伤大小(31% %)或深度(27% %)、启动液体复苏(27% %)或应用美国烧伤协会烧伤中心转移指南(24% %)感到舒适。每年处理5次或5次以上烧伤的医生报告说,他们在多个领域的舒适度显著提高(p <; 0.05)。在早期和晚期职业提供者之间没有发现显著差异。本研究表明,在农村和偏远地区工作的医疗服务提供者报告说,他们对烧伤大小和深度评估、启动液体复苏和应用烧伤中心转诊指南的舒适度有限——这些都是初始损伤管理和转诊的重要技能。这些发现强调需要系统级的支持和教育资源的提供者在远离专门烧伤中心的地区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书