ArticleBritish paramedic journal2020
The assessment and management of thermal burn injuries in a UK ambulance service: a clinical audit.
Article in British paramedic journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inhaled Methoxyflurane in Australian Emergency Departments-A Cost-Minimisation Analysis.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Article
- The Accuracy of Prehospital Fluid Resuscitation of Burn Patients: A Systematic Review.European burn journal · 2022Review
- A Weakly-Supervised Named Entity Recognition Machine Learning Approach for Emergency Medical Services Clinical Audit.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- A case series to evaluate burn therapy practices after application of Biodegradable Temporising Matrix (BTM).Scars, burns & healingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough burn emergencies are infrequently encountered, the ambulance service is often the first point of contact for patients in these situations. It is therefore important that these potentially devastating injuries are managed in accordance with the evidence base. Appropriate assessment and management of these patients in the pre-hospital phase will have a significant impact upon their long-term outcomes, such as scarring cosmesis and functionality. AIM AND
objectivesThis audit was conducted to determine if patients presenting to one UK ambulance service with thermal burn injuries were managed safely, effectively and in a timely manner. Areas highlighted for improvement will assist in directing future pre-hospital research and educational requirements. Epidemiological data will also be provided.
results278 thermal burn incidents occurring from June 2017 to May 2018 (inclusive) were included in this audit. A larger proportion of burn patients were paediatrics who fell into the 0-10 age category, most burn patients were injured at a home address and only nine of the overall sample were major burns. Only 35% of patients received adequate cooling of their burns, an essential first aid intervention. The assessment of pain (87%) and provision of analgesia (75%) showed a higher compliance rate. However, only 54% had pain reassessed after analgesia. There was a near 100% compliance rate for patients being managed without hydrogel dressings and topical medicines.
conclusionThe results indicate several areas for improvement within the ambulance trust. Of importance is the application of basic first aid, such as cooling. It is important not only to improve education among staff but also to understand non-compliance. It should be acknowledged that assessment of pain and provision of analgesia demonstrated far higher compliance compared to current pre-hospital evidence. Several points for education and research have been identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.