772 Psychosocial Impact of a New Peer-support Program at a Burn Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In March 2019, this Burn Center became the 76th active Survivors Offering Assistance in Recovery (SOAR) hospital in the U.S. and Canada. Burn survivors are directly affected by their burn injuries, but so is the survivor’s family, their healthcare staff, and their community. The purpose of this project is to describe our efforts to improve psychosocial care after discharge. Methods The Burn Center’s SOAR peer-support program consists of: 1) group care, 2) individual care, 3) staff care, and 4) community care. Group care consists of weekly peer-support sessions for burn survivors, led by certified SOAR peer supporters/burn survivors, with support from certified SOAR program coordinators. We also host monthly social outings. Individual care occurs when a SOAR peer supporter provides one-on-one support to another survivor. Our burn survivors have historically visited patients in their support of each other’s recovery. We expanded this by teaching survivors an evidence-based approach. Care has been conducted in-person, via phone, social media, and/or through the SOAR webpage. It seems most effective for people who live at a distance from the burn center and who cannot attend weekly sessions. Staff care aims to increase morale and mitigate burnout. Burn survivors, who are deemed psychiatrically stable, are invited to speak to the same staff who took care of them. The intent is to remind staff of the life-saving effect of their daily work, and to instill a sense of meaningfulness. Staff are also invited to attend burn community activities. Community care consists of survivors speaking at various community events to raise awareness and promote prevention. Results At 24 weeks, there have been 931 SOAR encounters: group care (24 group sessions and n=216), individual care (n=55), staff care (4 events and n=212), and community care (7 events and n=448). The weekly groups currently have an average of 10 participants. There are 55 documented individual-care encounters. A common staff theme revolves around regaining a sense of meaningfulness. Qualitative reports show improved mood, community reintegration, anxiety, pain, and rehabilitation. Recent survivors and their families report feeling better connected to the community than those injured years ago. Conclusions There is a desire for the continuation of the Burn Center’s peer-support program. There continue to be new and recurring attendees at our weekly group sessions. Our peer supporters are semi-autonomous and eager to provide individual support. The program coordinators and peer supporters continue to support Burn Center staff. Applicability of Research to Practice Programs such as this are a powerful venue for sharing one’s experiences and for inspiring others on the path of burn recovery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".