84. Far Out: Evaluating the Impact of Distance On Acute Burn Outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Burn centers are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas, threatening to produce health disparities among rural patients. Delays in treatment can lead to longer hospital stays, higher risk of complications, delayed wound healing, and increased mortality. This study aims to determine the impact of patients’ distance to a single burn center on burn outcomes. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective review was conducted on patients who presented to a single ABA-verified burn center with acute burn injuries between 2016 and 2023. Data collection included demographics, distance to burn center, burn characteristics, and outcomes. Multiple logistic regression and analysis of variance were performed to analyze the effect of distance on burn outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2777 patients (mean age 41.1 ± 24.4 years; 81.4% Caucasian, 13.7% African American, 2.23% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.97% American Indian/Alaska Native) were included. The average distance from home to the burn center was 146.0 ± 745.2 km, and time from injury to admission was 1.04 ± 2.9 days. Ventilator use averaged 0.8 ± 4.0 days, ICU stay 3.2 ± 9.0 days, and hospital stay 9.1 ± 12.15 days, with an average of 0.81 ± 1.5 operations. Most patients (71.7%, n=1992) had 2nd or 3rd degree burns, with a mean TBSA of 7.3 ± 12.4%. Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders lived the farthest (386.6 ± 1624.1 km), and African Americans the closest (99.9 ± 688.1 km). Distance from the burn center was not significantly associated with mortality (χ²=4.32; p=0.825), ventilator days (β=0.234; p=0.968), operations (β=0.822; p=0.966), TBSA (β=0.210; p=0.899), hospital days (β=-1.831; p=0.608), or ICU days (β=-0.165; p=0.959). However, longer delays between injury and admission were significantly associated with greater distance (β=15.20; p=0.0068). Significant differences in distance were found between racial groups (χ²=268.3; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients living far from a burn center are more likely to have a delay between their date of injury and the date of admission than patients living closer, and distances vary significantly between racial groups. Interestingly, distance does not have a significant effect on patient mortality and length of hospital stay. The significant findings outlined here point to potential inequities associated with delays in treatment. Efforts in this area should be geared towards telemedicine for remote consultations and more robust community education on the treatment of acute burns, especially for those without access to care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Published
2025-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gox.0001112288.69300.0c
Primary Topic
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

84. Far Out: Evaluating the Impact of Distance On Acute Burn Outcomes

Jenny Ziembicki, Alexis Henderson, Francesco M. Egro, A Corcos et al.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
article

84. Far Out: Evaluating the Impact of Distance On Acute Burn Outcomes

Jenny Ziembicki, Alexis Henderson, Francesco M. Egro, A Corcos, George Elias, José-Luís Pérez-Arellano, Christopher Fedor, Hilary Liu, Mare G. Kaulakis
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Burn centers are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas, threatening to produce health disparities among rural patients. Delays in treatment can lead to longer hospital stays, higher risk of complications, delayed wound healing, and increased mortality. This study aims to determine the impact of patients’ distance to a single burn center on burn outcomes. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective review was conducted on patients who presented to a single ABA-verified burn center with acute burn injuries between 2016 and 2023. Data collection included demographics, distance to burn center, burn characteristics, and outcomes. Multiple logistic regression and analysis of variance were performed to analyze the effect of distance on burn outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2777 patients (mean age 41.1 ± 24.4 years; 81.4% Caucasian, 13.7% African American, 2.23% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.97% American Indian/Alaska Native) were included. The average distance from home to the burn center was 146.0 ± 745.2 km, and time from injury to admission was 1.04 ± 2.9 days. Ventilator use averaged 0.8 ± 4.0 days, ICU stay 3.2 ± 9.0 days, and hospital stay 9.1 ± 12.15 days, with an average of 0.81 ± 1.5 operations. Most patients (71.7%, n=1992) had 2nd or 3rd degree burns, with a mean TBSA of 7.3 ± 12.4%. Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders lived the farthest (386.6 ± 1624.1 km), and African Americans the closest (99.9 ± 688.1 km). Distance from the burn center was not significantly associated with mortality (χ²=4.32; p=0.825), ventilator days (β=0.234; p=0.968), operations (β=0.822; p=0.966), TBSA (β=0.210; p=0.899), hospital days (β=-1.831; p=0.608), or ICU days (β=-0.165; p=0.959). However, longer delays between injury and admission were significantly associated with greater distance (β=15.20; p=0.0068). Significant differences in distance were found between racial groups (χ²=268.3; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients living far from a burn center are more likely to have a delay between their date of injury and the date of admission than patients living closer, and distances vary significantly between racial groups. Interestingly, distance does not have a significant effect on patient mortality and length of hospital stay. The significant findings outlined here point to potential inequities associated with delays in treatment. Efforts in this area should be geared towards telemedicine for remote consultations and more robust community education on the treatment of acute burns, especially for those without access to care.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenVol. 13(S1)
University of Pittsburgh (US), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.