745 Pediatric Burn Transfers: A 10 Year Analysis of Adherence to ABA Transfer Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Severe burn injuries require complex care at certified burn centres to minimize morbidity and mortality. The ABA Burn Centre Referral Criteria was developed to aid clinicians in determining which patients warrant transfer as physician comfort with the management of pediatric burns, accurate estimation of TBSA, and burn depth varies. We hypothesize that pediatric patients are often transferred despite not meeting referral criteria. The aim of this study was to review pediatric patients with burn injuries that were transferred to the provincial burn centre over the past 10 years to better understand the reasons for the transfer. Methods A 10-year retrospective review from January 2008 to December 2018 was performed using the provincial Burn Registry. Pediatric burn patients under 18 years old who were transferred for burn care were identified and their demographics, burn characteristics, and the basis for transfer was analyzed against the ABA Burn Referral Criteria. Results A total of 130 pediatric burn patients were transferred from 42 different hospitals of varying trauma levels. Patients on average were 5 years old, predominantly male (59%), and scalds were the most common etiology (53%). Most patients were transferred by a fixed-wing ambulance (54%) and the average transport time was 1.5 days after the initial injury. All children met 1 or more ABA Referral Criteria for transfer. The most common reasons for transfer were for a TBSA greater than 10% (42.2%), burn to the hand (27.7%) or perineum (11.5%), 3° burn depth (12.3%), or significant pre-existing medical disorders (9.2%). Conclusions Over the past 10 years, all pediatric burn patients met ABA Burn Centre Referral Criteria based on TBSA, burn depth and burn location alone. This study is limited in that we were not able to capture all pediatric burn patients to identify those that warranted a referral but were not transferred. Applicability of Research to Practice The results indicate that burn-related transfers to the provincial burn centre were appropriate. The dissemination of this information to the referring centres may serve to reinforce these positive referral patterns. Furthermore, this audit provides insight into the geographic origins of pediatric burn referrals in the province to help direct burn prevention and physician education efforts, as well as resources for initial burn care and post-discharge rehabilitation services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".