Uploaded by User26600

JBCR-BurnEducationPerceptionsPaperVer20-CleanCopy

advertisement
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283426758
Advanced Burn Life Support for Day-to-Day Burn Injury Management and
Disaster Preparedness
Article in Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association · October 2015
DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000311
CITATIONS
READS
0
345
11 authors, including:
Randy D. Kearns
University of New Orleans
Shiara M Ortiz-Pujols
34 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS
70 PUBLICATIONS 162 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Christopher K Craig
M. B. Skarote
Wake Forest School of Medicine
Veteran Corps of America
5 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS
8 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Smoke Inhalation, Burns, Trauma View project
Burn Care Best Practices Series View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Randy D. Kearns on 30 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Advanced Burn Life Support for day to day Burn Injury Management and Disaster
Preparedness; Stakeholder Experiences and Student Perceptions following 56 ABLS
courses.
Manuscript – Original Research
Targeted Journal: Journal of Burn Care and Research
Randy D. Kearns, DHA MSA
Program Director, North Carolina Burn Disaster Program
Administrator, EMS Performance Improvement Center
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Shiara M. Ortiz-Pujols, MD
Burn Clinical Research Fellow
University of North Carolina
Christopher K. Craig, MMS, PA-C
Senior Physician Assistant WFBMC Burn Center
Wake Forest University Baptist Health System
Mary Beth Skarote, NREMT-P, LPN
North Carolina Office of EMS
Healthcare System and Hospital Preparedness Program Coordinator
James R. Gusler, NREMT-P, BSPH
Program Coordinator, Burn Education and Certificate Programs
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Jeffery Carter, MD
Burn Clinical Fellow
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Captain Paul Link, MSHS, BSN
Field Project Officer, Region IV Hospital Preparedness Program
HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
Amy Rezak Alger, MD
Assistant Professor of Surgery
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Charles B. Cairns, MD FACEP FAHA
Professor and Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Daniel Lofald, PhD
Director/Associate Professor; EdD/DHSc Program
University of St. Augustine of Health Sciences
James. H. Holmes IV, MD FACS
Director WFBMC Burn Center, Wake Forest University Baptist Health System
Associate Professor of Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Bruce A. Cairns, MD FACS
Director North Carolina Jaycee Burn Center
John Stackhouse Distinguished Professor of Surgery/Microbiology and Immunology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Corresponding Author
Randy D. Kearns
[email protected]
Phone (919) 843 5754
Running title: burn education
Abstract
Educational programs for clinicians managing patients with burn injuries represent
a critical aspect of burn disaster preparedness. Managing a disaster which includes a surge
of burn-injured patients remains one of the more challenging aspects of disaster medicine.
During a six year period that included the development of a burn surge disaster program
for one state, a critical gap was recognized as public presentations were conducted across
the state. This gap revealed an acute and greater than anticipated need to include burn care
education as an integral part of comprehensive burn surge disaster preparedness.
Many hospital and prehospital providers expressed concern with managing even a
single, burn-injured patient. While multiple programs were considered, Advanced Burn
Life Support (ABLS), a national standardized educational program was selected to help
address this need. The curriculum includes initial care for the burn injured patient as well
as an overview of the burn centers role in the disaster preparedness community.
After four years and 56 classes conducted across the state, a survey was developed
including a section that measured the perceptions of those who completed the ABLS
educational program. The study specifically examines questions including; did clinicians
attribute perceived changes in their burn care knowledge, skills and abilities and burn
disaster preparedness following completion of the program?
Introduction
Burn surge disaster planning activities for the state referenced in this paper evolved
to include meeting a substantial burn care educational need as a component of burn surge
preparedness.1 The education program selected to meet this need was Advanced Burn Life
Support (ABLS).2 Thus, a critical link in disaster preparedness included burn care
education for the hospital and EMS clinicians.
The education profession points to the importance of measuring student
perceptions as a marker to determine what may have been gained and the expertise
developed by the student who attended an educational course.3-5 For this state, a consensus
of the representatives for both the granting agency and the university concluded that a
retrospective survey which included a student perceptions focus would provide vital
insight regarding the effectiveness of this program. Several of the more often cited sources
regarding the value of student educational perceptions targets on-line course experiences
but reaffirm the importance of student perceptions as a critical marker in identifying
successes and areas for improvement.6,7
Therefore, after completing 56 ABLS courses a comprehensive survey was
distributed to those who completed one of these programs. The purpose of this paper is to
examine and report the perceptions of those who completed the survey regarding the
program. The survey tool included the core elements of burn care and burn disaster
preparedness.
Background
The September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks changed the course and intensity of medical
disaster planning to include a focus on burn and trauma surge in the United States (US).8-17
What began as bioterrorism, evolved into an all-hazards approach for medical disaster
preparedness.18-20 This included managing a surge of burn-injured patients as a critical
component of overall medical disaster management preparedness.10,21-24 Training and
education programs were critical factors for improved preparedness.25
In 2004, the Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program (BTHPP) was overseen
by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA).25 The US DHHS/HRSA/BTHPP required all states to
develop a burn surge plan as a component of their preparedness activities. However,
several states reported finding it difficult to convey a coherent message of managing
multiple burn-injured patients when the general audience felt uncomfortable managing
even the first burn-injured patient.1,26-31 (The BTHPP is now located in the US DHHS Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) and referred to as the
Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP).32
The first year this program included offering a wide-reaching series of presentations
regarding the aims for the burn surge disaster program and focused on historical burn
disasters that wreaked havoc for first responders, first receivers, trauma and burn centers
alike. Following these presentations, initial feedback from class participants representing a
variety of clinical care settings, made clear that managing the care of a burn-injured patient
must be included in the overall solution. The solution was to offer educational programs
that included the care of burn injured patients in the context of overall disaster
preparedness. Critical partners include emergency medical service (EMS) agencies as well
as hospitals with and without burn centers.30,31,33,34
To meet the educational need, those involved with the burn surge disaster program
evaluated national standardized educational programs. Key criteria for selection included;
current science validated by a national stakeholder organization for the care of a burninjured patient,35 a core component involving the management of a surge of burn-injured
patients, and was approved to offer the relevant educational credits recognized by the
various professional organizations to include physicians, nurses, and paramedical
personnel.
Educational Programs used to supplement Disaster Preparedness
Over the past 10 years, multiple educational programs emerged --- each containing
some aspect of disaster management. While most offered a more generalized approach to
disaster management, one specific curriculum met the objectives which included burn care
as well as a module regarding burn disaster management.3,35,36 The American Burn
Association (ABA) program, known as ABLS, was selected.
Selecting ABLS was based on an analysis of the course content by subject-matter
experts involved. Unfortunately at that point, the various programs evaluated, had a scarce
representation in the academic literature. They ranged from an experience of using ABLS in
Japan37 to the role of using ABLS for nursing staff in US burn centers.35
A similar program (to ABLS) commonly taught in Europe, Australia, New Zealand
and southeast Asia - Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB)38 exists, and the
curricula are similar with similar objectives to include preparation for major burn
events.38,39 They also had similar experiences reporting educational programs (such as
EMSB) improved competence and comfort with the individual responder involved in the
management of a mass casualty burn disaster.39
Aside from the aforementioned benefits seen with ABLS, other advantages were
identified, including the portability of the program.37 This was essential since access
demanded program delivery where the first responders and first receivers live and work.
Other advantages include the use of a validated program as a means of creating consistent
care of the burn-injured patient as well as the ability to enhance burn surge disaster
preparedness by using ABLS courses to discuss burn care of the individual patient in the
context of disaster preparedness.40
Educational Program Costs
Despite the advantages noted, several concerns were also identified. The first was
cost. The national certification fee for each non-physician clinician (e.g., Physician
Assistants, Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, and EMS personnel) was $200. The cost for a
physician was $325 (These have since increased to $225 and $350 respectively). ABLS, in
terms of costs, compares unfavorably to other national programs that focus specifically on
a topic such as Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS), International Basic Life Support
(ITLS), and Trauma Nurse Core Curriculum (TNCC). Their average cost were $50-$150 per
person. While the costs varied, one key aspect for those programs included how local
hospitals and EMS agencies could develop their own cadre of instructors and therefore
conduct their own programs based on the national standards. This allows them to create
their own program fees based on their costs.
The options with ABLS are limited given the instructor requirements. These
requirements include the fact that all instructors must currently work in a burn center
providing care for a burn injured patient. This limitation leads to a very small potential
pool of candidates for selecting instructors.
It was also learned that most clinicians had little to no historical exposure to ABLS.
According to the ABA, 245 NC clinicians completed ABLS between 2000 and 2007 - with
the primary audience being clinicians who work in, or in support of, area burn centers.
Given the fact that for this particular state, there were 60,000+ nurses who work in critical
care or emergency medicine and 35,000+ EMS personnel. Thus, the participation level was
vastly underwhelming.
To address the ABLS costs barrier, grant funding was secured to defray a portion of
the costs through a grant from the HPP.25 (The HPP was managed locally by the state EMS
agency.)
With the educational program chosen, the audience identified and the funding
secured, the first course was offered April, 2008. By December, 2011, a total of 56 ABLS
classes had been delivered statewide. Locations ranged from urban to rural communities,
with classes being held in local EMS stations, fire departments, hospitals, and community
colleges. The attendees included physicians, nurses, paramedics, emergency medical
technicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, respiratory
therapists, and other clinicians involved in the care of the burn-injured patient. Most of this
group would be involved locally in the initial management of a surge of burn-injured
patients or were listed in the state version for the Emergency System for Advance
Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals (ESAR-VHP)41 and could be deployed to a
community where a medical disaster occurred.
Methods
During the final 18 months of offering ABLS, a multifaceted retrospective survey
was developed. The survey tool was developed with input from instructors and program
coordinators which included a focus group activity during ABLS instructor training. The
working draft was submitted to the NCOEMS32 for review and input. Based on the input
from instructors, coordinators and state medical disaster officials, a final version was
adopted. The final version of the survey as well as a description of the study was submitted
to the university Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. The study: Burn Care
Education Assessment, Study#: 11-1614 was granted a Determination that the research did
not require IRB approval.
The “Burn Education Survey” was converted from a draft paper format to an online
system relying on a commercially available online survey and analysis tool.42 The final
version of the survey included several sections totaling 31 total questions. A link to the
survey as well as a description of the survey and its importance was distributed by email
notification. For the purpose of this paper, those who received the email notification
soliciting their participation included everyone who completed ABLS and had provided a
valid email address at the time of participating in ABLS.
The survey targeted the 1014 individuals who completed the ABLS course during
the 56 classes offered over the aforementioned four-year period and had provided a
working email address during the time of attending ABLS or at the time they registered in
ESAR-VHP and could be matched to the ABLS rosters. There were five requests over a fivemonth period urging participation from the targeted survey population.
It should be noted that there were 1382 students who completed ABLS during the
56 courses. However, during the first 18-24 months of the program, an email address was
not a required field for the paper/telephone registration process used at that time. Thus, an
email address was not captured, or was illegible from approximately 500 ABLS
participants. However, a portion of this group was matched with names in ESAR-VHP.
Therefore, of the 1382 who attended, 1014 email addresses could be identified that at
some point worked either when they registered or attended ABLS or when they registered
in ESAR-VHP. (It should be noted, that after converting to a web based online registration
system for ABLS, RegOnline,43 a working email address was required to complete the
registration.)
A descriptive analysis was recorded based on the Observed results. A second set of
data; the Expected Results were developed based on a 50/50 assumption. The Chi Square
test for independence was used to measure the significant relationship between the two
categorical variables (Observed versus Expected). Mathematically stated, where the
Observed, frequency count and the Expected frequency count are represented by O and E,
and r is the number of levels for one categorical variable and c is the number of levels for
the other categorical value, the calculation used was:
Results
There were 1014 physicians, nurses, EMS personnel, and others involved in the
immediate care of a burn-injured patient, who successfully completed ABLS during this
four-year period and provided a working email address at the time of completing the
educational program (or was matched and validated through ESAR-VHP). From this
population of 1014, 52(4.9%) were returned as “undeliverable” during the first survey
attempt indicating the email address was no longer valid and 20/1014 (2.0%) were
delivered but the recipient of the email selected the option to opted out of the survey,
leaving 942 potential respondents for survey participation.
There were 526 total respondents who completed at least the Demographics
Section and the Perceptions Section of the survey. Thus, the focus of this work was
directed at the results from the 526 who responded to the survey, 526/942 (55.84%).
The decision making process regarding those surveyed and the analysis is graphically
represented in Figure 1.
Certification/License/Credential, Work Environment and Participant Experience
The Demographics Section of the survey for the 526 respondents represent
clinical roles as graphically displayed in Figure 2. Respondents were almost equally
divided when identifying their workplace as graphically displayed in Figure 3. The seven
questions found in the Perceptions Section of the survey, as well as potential answers for
the respondents are found in Appendix I.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of the respondents reported holding their current clinical
credential for more than 10 years (See Figure 4, Column 2). Seventy percent (70%)
reported they had more than 10 years of experience in clinical care (See Figure 4, Column
1).
Completed
ABLS with Valid
Email Address
Assessed for eligibility (n= 1014)
Excluded (n=72)
 Undeliverable (n=52)
 Declined to participate/Opted Out (n=20)
Surveyed
Potential Respondents (n= 942)
Did not respond (n=416)
Analysis
Analyzed (n= 526)
Actual Results
Null Hypothesis
Figure 1. The graphical representation of the decision-making process for how survey
participants were surveyed and their responses analyzed.
Figure 2. Graphic representation of participant distribution. There were more Registered
Nurses (46%) than any other group who completed ABLS. There were (39%) of the
participants who reported being Paramedics, with (4%) being Physicians. The balance;
(11%) included all others such as Pharmacists, Midlevel Practitioners, Respiratory
Therapists, Emergency Medical Technicians, Firefighters, and Physical Therapists.
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the work environments for ABLS course participants.
Respondents were almost equally divided when identifying their workplace; Emergency
Medical Service personnel (EMS) or First Response (248/526, 49.3%) and those clinicians
who worked in a Hospital (243/526, 48.3%).
Overall Years in Healthcare
Observed
%
Observed
33
0-2 Years
6.3%
102
2-5 Years
19.4%
115
5-10 Years
21.9%
276
Greater than 10 Years
52.5%
Total
526
Years with Current Credential
Observed
%
Observed
9
0-2 Years
1.7%
63
2-5 Years
12.0%
86
5-10 Years
16.3%
368
Greater than 10 Years
70.0%
Total
526
Figure 4. The first column graphically represents the overall years the survey respondents
have been involved in healthcare. 70% of the respondents reported being involved in
healthcare as a profession, for more than 10 years.
The second column graphically represents the overall years the survey respondents have
held their current credential in the healthcare profession. Even so, more than half (52.5%)
reported that they have held their respective clinical credential for 10 or more years.
Perceptions Section
1. The respondents reported (Observed Values) the ABLS program contributed to
improved greater understanding of estimating (TBSA). The Observed Values were
statistically significant. (p < 0.001) as noted in Figure 5, Question 1.
2. The respondents reported (Observed Values) that the ABLS program had
contributed to an improved understanding of IV fluid infusion rates for an adult
burn patient to flow rates that are similar to, or consistent with, the
Consensus/Modified Formula. The Observed Values were statistically significant. (p
< 0.001) as noted in Figure 5, Question 2.
3. The respondents reported (Observed Values) that the ABLS program had
contributed to either the respondent having changed or influenced others to change
the type of IV fluid to Lactated Ringer as soon as it is available. The Observed Values
were statistically significant. (p < 0.001) as noted in Figure 5, Question 3.
4. The respondents reported (Observed Values) that the ABLS program had
contributed to an improved awareness for the respondent to more closely monitor
or influence others to more closely monitor (and to treat) the pain management
needs of a burn patient. The Observed Values were statistically significant. (p <
0.001) as noted in Figure 5, Question 4.
5. The respondents reported (Observed Values) that the ABLS program had
contributed to an improved understanding of the value of using, where available,
verified burn centers for burn injured patients. The Observed Values were
statistically significant. (p < 0.001) as noted in Figure 5, Question 5.
6. The respondents reported (Observed Values) that the ABLS program had
contributed to an improved awareness to more closely monitor or influence others
to more closely assess and manage the airway with respect to the unique aspects of
an inhalation injury. The Observed Values were statistically significant. (p < 0.001)
as noted in Figure 5, Question 6.
7. The respondents reported (Observed Values) that the ABLS program had
contributed to an improved awareness of the role burn centers, as well as other
specialty centers, play in a medical disaster. The Observed Values were statistically
significant. (p < 0.001) as noted in Figure 5, Question 7.
Figure 5. Compares actual scores registered by the solid bars for the Perceptions
reported by ABLS participants to the null hypothesis represented by the solid line.
Discussion
Evaluation and selection of the ABLS program relied on the stakeholders who chose
the course that best met the objectives for the educational program to be selected. 4,5,36
Relying on Posner et al. offered a structured approach to evaluate the various curricula for
each of the programs and their measurable objectives to be covered by the specific
program.
Furthermore, there is a direct link between the perceptions of the student and their
aim to develop expertise and expert performance.3,6,7 It seems both intuitive and logical
that the link between the perceptions of someone completing a class, and their
development of expertise exists. What is known from the literature however, is the
bottleneck is similar to that found in other disciplines where the “training bottleneck” is
getting knowledge to the novices, in this case many of those who reported a discomfort and
uneasiness with managing the care of a burn injured patients44 with outcomes first being
measured through perceptions of the students who completed the educational program, in
this case, ABLS.3
There are limitations when the focus is merely the perceptions of those who
completed an educational program. Nevertheless, the first hurdle when demonstrating the
value of an education program that had almost no use outside of the burn care community
and developing expertise is to measure the perceptions of those who completed the
program. The basic tenants of a burn care educational program include airway
management, TBSA assessment, fluid resuscitation and pain management. Additionally, it
was important to the stakeholders that key components of how the burn centers, and other
specialty centers connect with the first responders and first receivers, to assure the flow of
injured patients are managed appropriately and distributed accordingly in a disaster.
Future research is needed to assess the effectiveness of ABLS and other similar
training programs that contribute to medical disaster preparedness. For example, table-top
exercises with ABLS trained clinicians will allow participants to test their skills in a
simulated environment while evaluating the effectiveness of ABLS in preparing people for
disaster situations.
Although the data were collected in a manner that identified each year that the
participants reported completing ABLS, the trends remained proportionally constant
within each question across the years. The focus of the analysis will remain the seven
perception questions. Nevertheless, the results clearly demonstrate that two thirds of
participants perceived a benefit from the training that they received during ABLS. The
benefit of ABLS may be even greater in other sub-populations of providers, such as those
first responders and first receivers who manage a majority of the patients long before they
arrive at a Burn Center. Nevertheless, further investigation is warranted to explore the
impact of such a course on selected populations and the retention of this vital information.
Two of the questions focused on intravenous fluids. The typical student attended
their most recent presentation regarding burn injury in the format of a 45-60 minute
lecture that was part of a trauma course. During the day long trauma program the lasting
impression may lead to excessive intravenous fluid infusion in the hours between the
initial burn injury and the time the patient arrives at a burn center. Thus, two key ABLS
objectives include fluid infusion rates which followed the formula used at the time these
classes were offered.
The second question related to intravenous fluids focused on the type of fluid
selected for the burn injured patient. Lactated Ringers is the preferred intravenous fluid for
burn injured patients. However, that fluid is not uniformly available to all EMS agencies,
most of whom will start a saline solution until Lactated Ringers is available. Thus, one aim
of the program included the emphasis of either selecting the correct fluid or changing it to
the correct fluid as soon as it became available.
In both cases for these two questions, the respondents reported (Observed Values)
that the ABLS program had contributed to an improved understanding of IV fluid infusion
rates for as well as selecting the correct fluid type for the burn injured patient. The
Observed Values for both questions were statistically significant. (p < 0.001).
Two additional survey questions focused on patient care issues that have unique
characteristics with the burn-injured patient. They include pain and airway management.
Clinicians are typically unaccustomed to caring for the pain management needs of a burn
injured patient given amount of medication that may be needed over the duration of the
first 6-24 hours following the injury. The quantity used and the ongoing monitoring for
both therapeutic effects as well as endpoints for use can be substantially different than
most pain management scenarios.
With airway management, complications of steam inhalation injury, smoke
inhalation, or being burned in a confined space can each lead to critical airway
management issues in the hours following the burn injury. Key indicators are taught in
ABLS and while Blind Insertion Airway Devices (BAIDs) are more commonly used today in
the prehospital environment, this remains a situation where the advanced airway selection
should stay with the endotracheal tube.
The two remaining questions from the perceptions section of the survey dealt with
the importance of burn and other specialty centers in the planning and preparedness for
medical disasters. This includes reliance on verified Burn Centers when available for burn
injured patients. Burn Centers, Trauma Centers and other specialty centers can play a
critical role in medical disaster preparedness and planning. Identifying where these centers
are and involving them in planning, exercise and operation activities before disaster
strikes, is a proactive way to improve the overall management and outcomes of the single
or dozens of burn injured patients.
There are challenges associated with selecting a proprietary educational program
that can serve as a barrier for prospective participants who lack ongoing fiscal support.
These challenges include the participant fees that must be paid to the governing body for
the proprietary program, governance of how, when and where courses are conducted, and
national standards for instructors that may limit local personnel participating in the
instruction. Other challenges include ongoing maintenance of the credential. Given the
recertification costs are the same as the initial costs and there are no current curriculum in
place for recertification (other than repeating the initial course) maintaining the
certification has limitations.
Before the program began, clinicians reported they were far more likely to accept
their role in managing multiple burn injured patients once they felt comfortable with
managing one burn injured patient. It should be noted that this research confirms that a
significant majority of the participants, based on their reported perceptions, are better
equipped to manage a burn injured patient after completing the course than they were
before attending the program.
Burn Centers play a vital role in the management of a medical disaster. Another aim
of the program included a discussion regarding the role of the Burn Center in the myriad of
special care situations that may confront responders to a medical disaster. Knowing who to
call, their role and having a better understanding of the differences between those Burn
Centers who self-identify and those who are verified by an outside agency such as the ABA
is also important.
Conclusions
The survey results offer a small yet important first step in understanding if ABLS
has a value outside of the mainstream burn care profession to include the first responder,
first receiver and medical disaster clinicians. Furthermore, does that value extend into
managing a surge of patients with burn injuries such as in a burn disaster? These initial
findings support the belief that there is role for ABLS to prepare first responders and first
receivers in the care of one or many patients with a burn injury.
The academic world of adult education suggests that goals for an educational
program and developing expertise include the perceptions of the course participants.
Course participants are more likely to retain the information and less like to abandon the
core concepts when challenged by potentially conflicting information when the participant
perceives/believes their learning activity was validated through later experiences. In this
case, participants were questioned regarding their perceptions as it related to the core
objectives for ABLS. They included: patient assessment (to include size of the burn), fluid
resuscitation (rate and fluid selection), pain management, airway control, and the role of
the burn center in a disaster to include where available, the use of a verified burn center.
Aside from the patient care lectures, the ABLS disaster lecture also served as a
conduit to link the care of one to the management of multiple patients with burn injuries
and the importance of involving the burn center in medical disaster planning. This lecture
also offered that final chance to connect the day to day management of a burn injured
patient with the rare and episodic nature of a burn disaster.
As such, it is reasonable to conclude with statistically significant data, that ABLS as a
component of a broad disaster planning initiative, was perceived to be useful in managing
one or many burn injured patients. These findings are preliminary and the results only
examine basic topics. Nevertheless, this promising work represents the most complete
examination thus far of a large scale use for ABLS in this setting and suggests a more
comprehensive evaluation should be conducted.
Acknowledgements
It should be noted that to conduct 56 ABLS classes, it was necessary for a number of
personnel to be willing to take time from their personal and work life to travel and teach
these programs. The success of these classes reflects the time and dedication of more than
a dozen instructors including national faculty: Ernest Grant, RN MSN, from UNC Hospitals;
Katie Hollowed from MedStar and the Washington Hospital System in Washington DC; and
David Thompson, RN, and retired firefighter from Erlanger Medical Center in Chattanooga,
Tennessee. All of the burn surgeons in North Carolina have participated in the success of
this program to include: Dr. Bruce Cairns, Dr. Samuel Jones, and Dr. James Hwang at UNC
Hospitals; and Dr. James Holmes IV and Dr. Joseph Molnar at Wake Forest Baptist Health.
Furthermore, contributions were made by Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners as
well as other nursing staff. Those who taught more than 10 classes include: Derek Miller
RN and Renee Edkins RN, FNP. The authors of this work who have taught numerous classes
include Dr. Shiara M. Ortiz-Pujols, Mr. Christopher K. Craig, PA-C, Dr. Jeffery Carter, and Dr.
Amy Rezak Alger. It should also be noted that dozens of the courses were managed by Mr.
James R. Gusler.
Grants and Funding
This work is supported in part by the US DHHS/ASPR Hospital Preparedness
Program Grant CDC-RFA-TP12-1201 through the North Carolina Office of Emergency
Medical Services Contract 00027162. We would also like to acknowledge the support of our
educational programs through FEMA Grant EMW-2011-FP-01131.
Appendix I.
The Perceptions Section of the survey included seven questions. Each question
offered the answer selections of “Yes”, “No” and “Other” with other including options of
“Not Applicable” or “I have not completed ABLS”. While the focus of this work was to
measure the binary options of Yes/No, (“Other”) was offered to provide the respondent an
opportunity to offer an alternative answer. If “Other” was selected, the survey tool forced
the respondent to a narrative box and required text insertion to offer an expanded
explanation for the answer selection.
The seven questions from the survey tool regarding perception are:
1. In your professional opinion, are you are better prepared to estimate the size (TBSA) of
the burn injury following the training/education you received in ABLS?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 1.
2. Following the training/education you received in ABLS, have you either changed or
influenced others to change IV fluid infusion for an adult burn patient to flow rates that are
similar to, or consistent with, the Consensus/Modified Formula?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 2.
3. Following the training/education you received in ABLS, have you either changed or
influenced others to change the type of IV fluid infusion for an adult burn patient to
Lactated Ringers Solution as soon as it was available?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 3.
4. Following the training/education you received in ABLS, have you either changed or
influenced others to monitor more closely (and to treat) the pain control needs of a burn
patient?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 4.
5. Following the training/education you received in ABLS, have you either changed or
influenced others to be certain burn patients are managed at a verified burn center?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 5.
6. Following the training/education you received in ABLS, have you either changed or
influenced others to monitor more closely burn patients for inhalation injuries and to
manage more aggressively airway control where indicated?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 6.
7. Following the training/education you received in ABLS, do you have a better
understanding of the role that burn centers, as well as other specialty centers, play in a
medical disaster?
Results are identified in Figure 5, Question 7.
References
1.
Kearns RD, Cairns BA, Holmes t, J. H., Sagraves SG. The North Carolina Burn Surge
Disaster Plan for Emergency Medical Services and Hospitals. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina; 2012:85.
2.
American Burn Association Advisory Committee. American Burn Association
Provider Manual. 2011.
3.
Ericsson KA. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance.
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
4.
Nijhuis JFH, Segers MSR, Gijselaers WH. Influence of Redesigning a Learning
Environment on Student Perceptions and Learning Strategies. Learning
Environments Research. 2005;8(1):67-93.
5.
Karns GL. An Update of Marketing Student Perceptions of Learning Activities:
Structure, Preferences, and Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education.
2005;27(2):163-171.
6.
Song L, Singleton ES, Hill JR, Koh MH. Improving online learning: Student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher
Education. 2004;7(1):59-70.
7.
Rovai AP, Barnum KT. On-Line Course Effectiveness: An Analysis of Student
Interactions and Perceptions of Learning. Journal of Distant Education. Spring 2003
2003;18(1):57-73.
8.
McFee RB, Leikin JB, Kiernan K. Preparing for an era of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD)--are we there yet? Why we should all be concerned. Part II. Veterinary and
human toxicology. Dec 2004;46(6):347-351.
9.
Murphy JK. After 9/11: priority focus areas for bioterrorism preparedness in
hospitals. Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare
Executives. Jul-Aug 2004;49(4):227-235.
10.
Cairns BA, Stiffler A, Price F, Peck MD, Meyer AA. Managing a combined burn trauma
disaster in the post-9/11 world: lessons learned from the 2003 West
Pharmaceutical plant explosion. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. Mar-Apr
2005;26(2):144-150.
11.
Feeney JM, Goldberg R, Blumenthal JA, Wallack MK. September 11, 2001, revisited: a
review of the data. Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). Nov 2005;140(11):10681073.
12.
Jordan MH, Hollowed KA, Turner DG, Wang DS, Jeng JC. The Pentagon attack of
September 11, 2001: a burn center's experience. The Journal of burn care &
rehabilitation. Mar-Apr 2005;26(2):109-116.
13.
Niska RW, Burt CW. Bioterrorism and mass casualty preparedness in hospitals:
United States, 2003. Advanced Data from Vital and Health Statistics, US Centers for
Disease Control. . 2005;391:1-14.
14.
Yurt RW, Bessey PQ, Bauer GJ, et al. A regional burn center's response to a disaster:
September 11, 2001, and the days beyond. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.
Mar-Apr 2005;26(2):117-124.
15.
Barillo DJ, Wolf S. Planning for burn disasters: lessons learned from one hundred
years of history. J Burn Care Res. Sep-Oct 2006;27(5):622-634.
16.
Jeng JC, Hollowed K, Owen CT, et al. Contemplating the Pentagon attack after five
years of space and time: unheard voices from the ramparts of our burn center. J
Burn Care Res. Sep-Oct 2006;27(5):612-621.
17.
Yurt RW, Bessey PQ, Alden NE, et al. Burn-injured patients in a disaster: September
11th revisited. J Burn Care Res. Sep-Oct 2006;27(5):635-641.
18.
Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (2006).
19.
Coleman CN, Lurie N. Emergency medical preparedness for radiological/nuclear
incidents in the United States. Journal of radiological protection : official journal of
the Society for Radiological Protection. Mar 2012;32(1):N27-32.
20.
Limehouse W, Foster R. Creating a standardized system for allocation of scarce
clinical resources in response to an all hazards mass casualty disaster. Journal of the
South Carolina Medical Association (1975). 2011 Jun 2011.
21.
Hick JL, Barbera JA, Kelen GD. Refining surge capacity: conventional, contingency,
and crisis capacity. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness. Jun 2009;3(2
Suppl):S59-67.
22.
Hick JL, DeVries AS, Fink-Kocken P, Braun JE, Marchetti J. Allocating resources
during a crisis: you can't always get what you want. Minnesota medicine. Apr
2012;95(4):46-50.
23.
Hick JL, Hanfling D, Cantrill SV. Allocating scarce resources in disasters: emergency
department principles. Annals of emergency medicine. Mar 2012;59(3):177-187.
24.
Hick JL, Weinstock DM, Coleman CN, et al. Health care system planning for and
response to a nuclear detonation. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness.
Mar 2011;5 Suppl 1:S73-88.
25.
Healthcare Preparedness Capabilities, National Guidance for Healthcare System
Preparedness. 2012; 73. Available at:
http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/hpp/reports/Documents/capabilitie
s.pdf. Accessed Dec 9, 2012.
26.
Vandenberg V, Amara R, Crabtree J, Fruhwirth K, Rifenburg J, Garner W. Burn surge
for Los Angeles County, California. The Journal of trauma. Aug 2009;67(2
Suppl):S143-146.
27.
Leahy NE, Yurt RW, Lazar EJ, et al. Burn disaster response planning in New York
City: updated recommendations for best practices. J Burn Care Res. Sep-Oct
2012;33(5):587-594.
28.
Yurt RW, Lazar EJ, Leahy NE, et al. Burn disaster response planning: an urban
region's approach. J Burn Care Res. Jan-Feb 2008;29(1):158-165.
29.
Ruhren C, Conlon KM, Johansen S, et al. Developing and Implementing a Plan for
Large-Scale Burn Disaster Response in New Jersey. J burn care res. 2013.
30.
Wetta-Hall R, Berg-Copas GM, Cusick Jost J, Jost G. Preparing for burn disasters:
predictors of improved perceptions of competency after mass burn care training.
Prehospital and disaster medicine. Sep-Oct 2007;22(5):448-453.
31.
Wetta-Hall R, Jost JC, Jost G, Praheswari Y, Berg-Copas GM. Preparing for burn
disasters: evaluation of a continuing education training course for pre-hospital and
hospital professionals in Kansas. J Burn Care Res. Jan-Feb 2007;28(1):97-104.
32.
North Carolina Office of Emergency Medical Services. 2013; Website for the North
Carolina Office of EMS. Available at: http://www.ncems.org/. Accessed Feb 6, 2013.
33.
Barillo DJ. Burn centers and disaster response. J Burn Care Res. Sep-Oct
2006;27(5):558-559.
34.
Kearns RD, Holmes JHt, Alson RL, Cairns BA. Disaster Planning: The Past, Present,
and Future Concepts and Principles of Managing a Surge of Burn Injured Patients for
those Involved in Hospital Facility Planning and Preparedness. J Burn Care Res. Jun
28 2013:1.
35.
Wolak E, Klish K, Smith E, Cairns BA. Educational opportunities for experienced
staff: do they make a difference? J Nurses Staff Dev. Jul-Aug 2006;22(4):181-186.
36.
Posner GJ. Analyzing the curriculum. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
37.
Sasaki J, Takuma K, Oda J, et al. Experiences in organizing Advanced Burn Life
Support (ABLS) provider courses in Japan. Burns : journal of the International Society
for Burn Injuries. Feb 2010;36(1):65-69.
38.
Stone CA, Pape SA. Evolution of the Emergency Management of Severe Burns
(EMSB) course in the UK. Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries.
May 1999;25(3):262-264.
39.
Breederveld RS, Nieuwenhuis MK, Tuinebreijer WE, Aardenburg B. Effect of training
in the Emergency Management of Severe Burns on the knowledge and performance
of emergency care workers as measured by an online simulated burn incident. Burns
: journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. Mar 2011;37(2):281-287.
40.
Wachtel TL, Cowan ML, Reardon JD. Developing a regional and national burn
disaster response. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. Nov-Dec
1989;10(6):561-567.
41.
Emergency System for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals.
2012; http://www.phe.gov/esarvhp/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed June 29, 2012.
42.
Kearns R. Burn Education Survey. 2012; Web based Available at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NCBurnCareEducationDisasterSurvey. Accessed
Feb 6, 2013.
43.
Regonline. Active/RegOnline. 2013; Online registration system. Available at:
http://www.regonline.com/. Accessed Feb 6, 2013.
44.
Klein GA, Hoffman RR. Seeing the invisible: Perceptual-cognitive aspects of
expertise. Cognitive Science Foundations of Instruction. 1993:203-226.
View publication stats
Download