The Impact of Surgical Wait Time and Hospital Stay on the Incidence of Burn Wound Infection and Related Complications at a Single Tertiary Hospital Centre: A 10-Year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Admitted patients with burn injuries require prompt treatment and shorter hospital stays to avoid hospital-acquired infections and associated complications. This study aimed to determine the impact of time to the first surgery, and total length of hospital stay on the incidence of BWI and associated complications in adult patients with moderate burn injuries at a single tertiary hospital burn center. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified burn patients admitted to the Burn Unit between January 2011 and January 2021. The incidences of BWI and complications were documented. Univariate logistic regressions were performed, with significance set at P < .05. Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 50.8 years (range, 94-18 years), with 64 (37.4%) females. The mean wait time for surgery and total hospital stay was 2.6 days (SD = 2.5; 1-15 days) and 18.6 days (SD = 16.0; 1-125 days), respectively. Precisely, 47 patients (27.5%) were associated with positive burn wound cultures, with 23 patients (13.5%) experiencing clinical burn wound complications. Wait time to surgery did not significantly impact the incidence of BWI (OR = 0.97, P = .72) or related complications (OR = 0.97, P = .61). Total hospital stay was significantly associated with the incidence of BWI (OR = 1.05, P < .001) and related complications (OR = 1.02, P = .03). Conclusions: Delay to surgery may not be a significant risk factor of BWI and related complications in patients with burn injuries. Half of positive burn wound cultures are associated with objective clinical infection and subsequent complications. However, total hospital stay may be clinically important.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".