Taira Breena R, Singer Adam J, Cassara Guy, Salama Michael N, Sandoval Steven
Departments of Emergency Medicine and Surgery, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
J Burn Care Res. 2010 Jan-Feb;31(1):121-4. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181cb8cd9.
Several techniques (such as cooling and covering) are recommended in the first aid management of burn injured patients, both for lay persons and for EMS. Few studies have examined the rates of compliance with these recommendations. This study is a burn registry query performed in a suburban academic medical center with a regional burn unit. Patients seen by the burn service between January 2008 and February 2009 were included. Demographics, injury characteristics, rates of implementation of first aid, and method of transport to medical care (self vs ambulance) were recorded. Rates of implementation are reported as proportions with confidence intervals (CIs) and rates of implementation in those transported by self vs ambulance and work-related vs nonwork-related burns are compared using chi tests. Two hundred eleven burn patients were entered in the registry during the study period. Mean age was 27.0 (SD, 22.1) years, 44.3% were female, 95.2% were thermal burns, and 29.9% were transported by ambulance; 72.7% (95% CI, 66-78%) reported cooling their burn before presentation for medical care. Of those, 39.9% reported using tap water to cool their burn (95% CI, 33.4-46.8%), whereas 25.2% used ice (95% CI, 18.4-33.5%), and 8.9% used a cooling blanket (95% CI, 5-15%). Only 22.2% reported having applied a dressing before arrival in the hospital (95% CI, 16.9-28.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups who transported themselves to care in comparison with those who were brought in by ambulance in terms of cooling with water (P = .516), cooling with ice (P = .063), or application of dressing (P = .506). Further, no differences existed between those reporting cooling of the burn and those who did not in terms of patient characteristics. Rates of first aid administered for burn injury by lay persons before arrival at a burn center are high. A substantial percentage of people continue to use ice to cool their burns despite evidence of its potential detrimental nature. There is no difference in the rates of first aid implementation in those who did and did not contact EMS. The initial call to EMS might be used to instruct lay persons in appropriate burn first aid while awaiting the ambulance.
在烧伤患者的急救处理中,推荐了几种技术(如冷却和覆盖),适用于非专业人员和急救医疗服务(EMS)人员。很少有研究调查这些建议的遵守率。本研究是在一家设有区域烧伤科的郊区学术医疗中心进行的烧伤登记查询。纳入了2008年1月至2009年2月期间烧伤科诊治的患者。记录了人口统计学资料、损伤特征、急救实施率以及前往医疗机构的交通方式(自行前往与救护车运送)。实施率以带有置信区间(CIs)的比例形式报告,使用卡方检验比较自行运送与救护车运送以及工作相关烧伤与非工作相关烧伤患者的实施率。在研究期间,有211名烧伤患者被纳入登记。平均年龄为27.0(标准差,22.1)岁,44.3%为女性,95.2%为热烧伤,29.9%由救护车运送;72.7%(95%CI,66 - 78%)报告在就医前对烧伤进行了冷却。其中,39.9%报告使用自来水冷却烧伤(95%CI,33.4 - 46.8%),而25.2%使用冰块(95%CI,18.4 - 33.5%),8.9%使用冷却毯(95%CI,5 - 15%)。只有22.2%报告在到达医院前进行了包扎(95%CI,16.9 - 28.5%)。在用水冷却(P = 0.516)、用冰冷却(P = 0.063)或包扎(P = 0.506)方面,自行前往就医的患者组与救护车运送的患者组之间没有显著差异。此外,在患者特征方面,报告对烧伤进行冷却的患者与未进行冷却的患者之间也没有差异。非专业人员在到达烧伤中心之前对烧伤进行急救的比例很高。尽管有证据表明冰块可能具有有害性质,但仍有相当比例的人继续使用冰块冷却烧伤。呼叫EMS和未呼叫EMS的患者在急救实施率方面没有差异。在等待救护车期间,最初呼叫EMS可用于指导非专业人员进行适当的烧伤急救。