Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The American Burn Association instituted a burn center verification process to ensure optimal care for patients with burn injury. Limited data exist regarding differences in admissions and outcomes between verified (VC) and nonverified burn centers (NVC). The study purpose was to compare demographics, treatment, and outcomes of VC and NVC. The five VC were compared with the 12 NVC using data from California's discharge database for the year 2003. A total of 2867 patients were admitted to a burn center, 1645 to NVC (132/center), and 1222 (244/center) to VC. NVC admitted 1496 (91%) of their patients from local area and 118 (7%) from other acute care hospitals; in contrast, 948 (78%) of VC patients were local and 253 (21%) were transfers from other acute care hospitals. VCs admitted twice as many burns > or =80% total body surface area as NVC. VCs admitted more patients with face burns (18% VC vs 14% NVC, P < .001), had more patients on mechanical ventilation (12.4% VC vs 9.9% NVC P < .04), and performed fewer operations (61% VC vs 66% NVC, P < .006). Mortality rate was 3% in NVC and 4% in VC. During the study period verified centers in California admitted more patients per center and treated more severely injured patients than nonverified centers. Despite these differences, VC had mortality rates comparable to their nonverified counterparts. These findings support the need for additional studies evaluating the impact of verification on burn care.
Palmieri et al. (Tue,) studied this question.