541 In-Process Quality Improvement Action Following an Urban Residential Explosion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Burn centers need specialized plans for the management of burn mass casualty incidents for best outcomes. The ABA burn disaster response plan distributed in 2023 provides a communication plan for the association and burn centers. However, individual centers must develop local response plans. In this case, a Level 1 trauma and burn center with an institutional all-hazards, non-burn specific disaster plan responded to a home explosion in a city of 1.1 million. This event prompted a quality improvement project to assess the opportunities for development of burn-specific disaster response needs within the existing plan. Methods The Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) approach to quality improvement was utilized. Defining the problem and measuring current performance was conducted based on information derived from the electronic medical record system, Fire Department report and team debriefs of the incident response. Results Seven male patients with a mean TBSA of 19% were admitted to the burn centre in a 1100 bed tertiary care hospital on a Monday morning. Three required ICU level care. The burn center had zero available beds at the time of incident and surge capacity was utilized. The total number of surgical procedures performed was 17. Mean length of stay was 34 days. There were 95 outpatient encounters in the six months following the incident (Table 1). All patients received specialized burn care and were discharged back to the community independent of basic activities of daily living. Increased human resources, equipment and consumable product use by physio and occupational therapy at the time of incident and in follow up was noted to be greater than anticipated. Social work needs exceeded capacity. On hand local specialized dressing supplies were exhausted within the first 24 hours and supplemental products were acquired from other centers and commercial vendors until available stock depleted. Strategies to improve initial communication have been implemented. Burn unit expansion is under discussion with the regional health authority. Stock levels and acquisition planning for supplies is underway. Additional physio, occupational therapy and social work needs require further measurement and analysis. Conclusions Assessment of this center’s response to multiple simultaneous burn patient presentations offered an opportunity to optimize an existing all-hazards disaster response plan. Simulated burn disaster response is necessary to further assess the changes implemented and proposed. Applicability of Research to Practice After event review may improve disaster response planning.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".