506 Sweet Dressings: Honey Use in United States and Canadian Burn Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn centers in the United States (US) and Canada vary widely with regards to wound care practices. Honey is a natural, non-toxic, and an ageless technique for the promotion of wound healing. Our burn center recently began using honey dressings (HD) and experienced several challenges: application, dressing maintenance, and staff acceptance. As part of an evidence-based Performance Improvement project to improve HD implementation in our burn center, we contacted burn centers throughout the US and Canada to learn about their use of HD. Burn Care Resource Directories for US (N=128) and Canadian (N=14) burn centers, available on the American Burn Association (ABA) website, were used. Through phone calls in October 2016, a 10 question survey was conducted with a nurse or alternate provider about their center’s use of HD. The questions addressed wound type, size, and location, products used, and successes and failures. Descriptive statistics were performed. We received responses from 105 US (82%) and 10 Canadian (71%) burn centers, of which 67 were ABA verified (58%). Current HD use for various wounds was reported in 22 centers (19%), while eight centers (7%) reported past usage that has since been discontinued. Of the 22 centers reporting HD use, 15 were verified (68%). The Western Region had the highest use (n=11, 50%) with the remaining from the Midwest, Northeast, Eastern Great Lakes and Canada. Two-thirds (n=14, 64%) reported use on chronic wounds, 13 (59%) on burns, 11 (50%) on pressure ulcers, and two (9%) on skin grafts. All centers described using HD for small wounds, while only two centers (9%) reported the use of HD for ≥ 20% total body surface area wounds. The most common form of HD used was gel (n=16, 73%), with five centers describing an absorbent polymer or alginate sheet (23%); 10 used a combination of products (45%). The most common complications reported were pain (45%) and stickiness (18%). Honey is used in a small number of US and Canadian burn centers. Despite feedback that HD are challenging to use in that they are “sticky” and “drippy,” centers are reporting success, particularly with facial burns, and several said, “we love it.” Many centers reported intermittent burning or stinging upon application. Overall, respondents from centers using HD are very optimistic and plan to continue using them in their practice. Dressing selection is crucial and factors such as pain, ease of use, and healing time are considerations. Introduction of new products is challenging and may be facilitated by sharing experiences with other burn centers. HD appear to provide many elements for optimal wound healing; however, further research is warranted to establish if HD result in improved wound healing and a reduction in wound infections in burn patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".