MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238635088 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irab032.275

625 The Impact of COVID-19 on Burn Care at a Regional Burn Center

2021· article· en· W4238635088 on OpenAlexaff
Alan D. Rogers, Plast Surg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurn centerCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Emergency medicineTotal body surface areaEtiologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PediatricsMedical emergencySurgeryPoison controlInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound global impact, not least on hospital functioning. Institutions have all had to prepare and adapt to a large number of admissions, and the influence on elective and emergency surgical services, including burn care, has been significant; it may be some time before we know the full extent of this. While many centers were able to commence more normal activities for a while, we are now seeing an exponential rise in cases again, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the provision of burn care. Methods A review of all admissions, operative cases and clinic visits between 1 April and 31 August 2020 was undertaken at an American Burn Association verified burn center. These data were compared with the same five-month period in the preceding two years. Results Selected data highlights are tabulated (Table 1). During the five months in question, fewer patients were admitted than the previous two years (N=81 versus 121). The mean total body surface area was slightly higher this year (13.7%), and the mean length of hospital stay longer (18 days). The male-to-female ratio of admitted patients was greater during the five months of 2020, at 2.9:1, compared to 1.7:1. No significant differences in terms of etiology were detected, however. As expected, clinic visits reduced dramatically from a mean of 160 patient visits per month to just 81 per month, with the majority conducted virtually. During 2020 the operative cases were similar in number to previous years (N=176), but the mean duration was significantly longer (190 minutes). The total time utilised for burn surgery was similar to previous years (572 hours). Table 1. Selected burn center data comparing 2020 with 2019 and 2018. Conclusions This study demonstrates that although total admissions were slightly reduced, the demands on Burn ICU bed resources and burn operating time were similar. The data supports the notion that removing scheduled operating time for our service resulted in less efficient execution of acute burn surgeries and longer hospital stays. Although formal clinic visits were significantly reduced and were mainly conducted virtually, several patients were satisfied by a novel and user-friendly email service conducted by our clinic nurse specialist.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207