A 3-Year Review of an Outpatient Burn Sedation Program in a Tertiary Burn Care Centre: Is It Safe and Does It Work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The burn treatment room at our tertiary-care centre is run by a multidisciplinary team, providing care to primarily burn patients who require moderate to deep sedation to undergo dressing changes in a monitored setting outside the operating room. There is little literature on the safety, efficacy, and logistics of treating outpatient pediatric burn patients in this manner. This study reviews the safety of deep sedation in the burn treatment room. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with burns treated in the burn treatment room from 2013 to 2015 was conducted. Patient demographics, diagnosis, procedure details, sedation, and adverse events were recorded. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Sevety-four patients with burns had a total of 308 visits in the burn treatment room for burn bath and/or dressing changes. Scald burns were the most common mechanism of injury (n = 56). Most burns were superficial and mid-dermal (54%), initially estimated at 5% to 10% TBSA (50%). Of the 308 visits, 304 required sedation. Adverse events were recorded in 11 (3.6%) of 304 sedated procedures. None of these events were critical: 7 patients required intravenous conversion due to inadequate oral sedation, 2 experienced brief apnea episodes but recovered spontaneously, and 2 had delayed discharge of more than 2 hours due to residual sedation. CONCLUSION: The burn treatment room is a safe and effective setting for treating pediatric burn patients, bypassing what might historically require operating suite inpatient management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".