Survey on Current Hydrotherapy Use Among North American Burn Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors have reviewed hydrotherapy practices in North American burn centers and described the epidemiology of hydrotherapy-associated nosocomial infections. A web-based survey was distributed to the directors of all burn care facilities listed by the American Burn Association. Questions addressed aspects of practice, including the method, additives, disposable liners, decontamination practices, nosocomial pathogens, and perceptions regarding the "ideal" method of hydrotherapy. The response rate was 44%, 59 of 142 centers, or 827 of 1900 beds. Hydrotherapy is regularly used by 83% of centers. Among these centers, 10% use exclusively immersion hydrotherapy (IH), 54% use exclusively shower cart hydrotherapy (SCH), and 35% use a combination of IH and SCH. Disposable liners are used at 80% of centers. Tap water alone is used by 51% of centers, 27% add detergent, 16% chlorhexidine, and 7% povidone-iodine. The majority of centers (57%) do not routinely culture their hydrotherapy equipment, 20% culture weekly, 7% monthly, and 17% less than once per month. Directors believe that Pseudomonas aeruginosa, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus are the most common nosocomial pathogens, followed by Acinetobacter species and Candida albicans. The relative frequency of occurrence of the first three pathogens did not vary with regard to the hydrotherapy method used. Given the opportunity to redesign, 45% of burn unit directors would implement SCH only, 42% a combination of SCH and IH, 2% exclusively IH, and 11% no hydrotherapy or bedside irrigation only. The prevalence of hydrotherapy use at North American burn centers has decreased since 1990 (83% vs 95%), yet continues to be used at the majority of centers. The use of IH has also declined (55% vs 81%). The trend away from the exclusive use of IH will likely continue, because more centers incorporate showering methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".