Direct comparison of reproducibility and reliability in quantitative assessments of burn scar properties

IntroductionDetermining the efficacy of anti-scar technologies can be difficult as qualitative, subjective assessments are often utilized instead of systematic, objective measures. Perceptions regarding the reliability of instruments for quantitative measurements along with their high cost and increased data collection time may discourage their use, leading to use of scar scales which are relatively quick and low-cost. To directly evaluate the reliability of instruments for quantitative measurements of scar properties, instruments and two qualitative scales were compared by assessing a variety of cutaneous scars.MethodsScar height and surface texture were evaluated using a 3D scanner and a mold/cast technique. Scar color was evaluated by using a spectroscopy-based tool, the Mexameter®, and digital photography with image analysis. Scar biomechanics were evaluated using the BTC-2000?, Dermal Torque Meter (DTM®), and ballistometer®. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were used to qualitatively evaluate the same scar properties. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine inter- and intra-user reliability (poor, moderate, good, excellent) with all instruments and the kappa reliability statistic was used to asses inter-user reliability (poor, fair, moderate, good, very good) for VSS and POSAS. Time for measurement collection and after collection analysis was also recorded.ResultsThe Mexameter® was the most reliable method for evaluating erythema and pigmentation compared to digital photography and image processing, POSAS and VSS. Digital photography and analysis was more reliable than POSAS and VSS. Assessment of scar height was significantly more reliable when using a 3D scanner versus VSS and POSAS. The 3D scanner and mold-cast techniques also offered an additional benefit of providing an absolute value of scar height relative to the surrounding tissue. Intra-user reliability for all mechanical tests was moderate to good. Inter-user reliability was greater when using the BTC-2000? and ballistometer® versus the DTM®. All quantitative measurements took less than 90 s for collection, with the exception of the mold/cast technique.ConclusionNon-invasive instruments allow scar properties to be quantitatively assessed with high sensitivity and as a function of time and/or treatment without the need for biopsy collection. Overall, the reliability of scar assessments was significantly improved when quantitative instruments were utilized versus scar scales. Quantitative assessment of color and biomechanics were swift, requiring less than 90 s per measurement while assessments of texture and height required additional analysis time after collection. With proper training of clinical staff and well-defined protocols for measurement collection, reliable, quantitative assessments of scar properties can be collected with little disruption to the clinical workflow.     

Improving care through standardized treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax

PurposeThe objective of this quality improvement (QI) initiative was to implement a standardized clinical treatment protocol for patients presenting with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) in order to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS), diagnostic radiation exposure, and related cost.MethodsBaseline data from patients admitted with PSP from January 1, 2016 to July 31, 2018 were compared to data from patients managed using a newly developed evidence-based treatment pathway from August 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019. Standard QI methodology was used to track results.ResultsFifty-six episodes of PSP were observed during the baseline period and 40 episodes of PSP following initiation of the PSP protocol. The average LOS decreased from 4.5 days to 2.9 days. Patients underwent an average of 8.8 X-rays per admission preintervention versus 5.9 postintervention. The rate of CT scans decreased from 45% to 15% (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the rates of 30-day recurrence between the preintervention (13%) and postintervention (10%) groups (p = 0.7). Average admission costs per patient decreased by $1322 after adoption of the pathway.ConclusionsAdoption of a standardized treatment protocol for PSP led to a reduction in LOS, diagnostic imaging utilization, and cost without increasing clinical recurrence.Type of studyQuality improvement.Level of evidenceLevel III.     

Trends and Outcomes in Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Transplantation in Australia and New Zealand

AimRates of simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation (SLKT) have increased, but indications for SLKT remain poorly defined. Additional data are needed to determine which patients benefit from SLKT to best direct use of scarce donor kidneys.MethodsData were extracted from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) database for all SLKT performed until the end of 2017. Patients were divided by pretransplant dialysis status into no dialysis before SLKT (preemptive kidney transplant) and any dialysis before SLKT (nonpreemptive). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared.ResultsBetween 1989 and 2017, inclusive, 84 SLKT procedures were performed in Australia, of which 24% were preemptive. Preemptive and nonpreemptive SLKT recipients did not significantly differ in age (P = .267), sex (P = .526), or ethnicity (P = .870). Over a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, preemptively transplanted patients had a statistically equivalent risk of kidney graft failure (hazard ratio (HR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-12.86, P = .474) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.69, 95% CI: 0.51-5.6, P = .226) compared to nonpreemptive patients. Overall, 1- and 5-year survival rates for all SLKTs were 92% (95% CI: 86-96) and 60% (95% CI: 45-75), respectively.ConclusionKidney graft and overall patient survival were similar between patients with preemptive kidney transplant and those who were dialysis dependent.     

Variability in cesarean delivery rates among individual labor and delivery nurses compared to physicians at three attribution time points

ObjectiveTo examine the variability in the cesarean delivery (CD) rates of individual labor and delivery nurses compared with physicians at three attribution time points.Data SourcesMedical record data from nine hospitals in Washington State from January 2016 through September 2018.Study DesignRetrospective, observational cohort design using an aggregated database of birth records.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsChart‐abstracted clinical data from a subset of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex births attributed at admission, labor management, and delivery to nurses and physicians. Two classification methods were used to categorize nurse‐ and physician‐level CD rates at three attribution time points and the reliability of these methods compared.Principal FindingsThe sample included 12 556 births, 319 nurses, and 126 physicians. Overall, variation in nurse‐level CD rates did not differ significantly across the three attribution time points, and the extent of variation was similar to that observed in physicians. However, agreement between attribution time points varied between 35 percent and 65 percent when classifying individual nurses into the top and bottom deciles. The average reliability of nurse‐level CD rates was 32 percent at admission (IQR 22.0 percent to 38.7 percent), 32.6 percent at labor (IQR 23.1 percent to 40.9 percent), and 29.3 percent (IQR 20.9 percent to 35.8 percent) at delivery. The average reliability of physician‐level CD rates was higher: 54.2 percent (IQR 38.7 percent to 71.4 percent) at admission, 62.5 percent (IQR 49.0 percent to 79.6 percent) at labor management, and 66.1 percent (IQR 53.7 percent to 81.2 percent) at delivery.ConclusionFeedback on nurse‐level CD rates as part of routine clinical quality audits can provide insight into nurse performance in the context of other individual‐level and unit‐level information. To reliably distinguish individual nurse performance, larger sample sizes are needed.