A 10-year Retrospective Review of Patient-to-Patient Transmitted Pathogens in Culture-Positive Burn Wounds at a Tertiary Burn Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Burn wound infection can progress to sepsis and is a significant source of morbidity and mortality. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms are high in burn patients; these organisms can be transmitted between patients leading to poor outcomes. Objectives: To characterize patient-to-patient transmission of pathogens causing burn wound colonization at a single tertiary hospital burn center in Hamilton, Canada from 2011 to 2020. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the burn trauma unit at Hamilton General Hospital between 2011 and 2020. Antibiotic susceptibility panels of pathogens cultured from burn patients’ wound swab/tissue cultures were compared against pathogens cultured from other burn/nonburn patients with overlapping admission dates. Pathogens were categorized into likely, possible, or unlikely transmission, or normal skin flora on a case-by-case basis. Results: There were 173 burn patients with positive wound culture and 613 nonburn patients included in the study. Included burn patients had median age 52 years, mostly male (73%) with flame injury (65%), and median total body surface area 18%. There were 18 patients (10%) with likely transmission and 54 patients (31%) with possible transmission. Most frequently implicated pathogens for likely patient-to-patient transmission were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (7 patients) and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococci (4 patients). Both burn and nonburn patients were implicated. Conclusion: The burden of patient-to-patient transmission in culture-positive burn wounds was estimated to be between 10% and 41%. Greater care should be taken to avoid patient-to-patient transmission of pathogens to minimize burn infection morbidity and mortality. Prospective studies should be conducted with genomic sequencing and correlation with clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".