Burn Guidelines—An International Comparison

2021 
Burn injuries can be life-threatening, thus standardized procedures are essential to ensure the best medical care is provided after injury. Therefore, burn care guidelines were created throughout the world. There are many similarities within the different burn guidelines, especially in basic burn care procedures. Taking a closer look, it becomes clear that there are also a lot of disparities within the guidelines. In this review the guidelines of the German Society of Burn Treatment (DGV), British Burn Association (BBA), European Burns Association (EBA), American Burn Association (ABA), Australian and New Zealand Burn Association (ANZBA), and the International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) are compared. The DGV-guidelines focus on pre-hospital treatment measures, intensive care treatment and acute wound therapy, whereas the BBA puts emphasis on infrastructure and staff qualification. The EBA created guidelines for medical practitioners and non-medical staff to standardize burn care in European countries with special focus on clear treatment recommendations and best infrastructural facilities. The ABA underlines the need for best qualified medical staff and ABLS- (Advanced Burn Life Support) standards. The ANZBA focuses on best treatment options including novel wound healing biotechnologies and post-burn return-to-function rehabilitation. In contrast to all other guidelines, the ISBI does not only deal with burn care in developed countries but also in resource-limited settings. Special focus lies on the discussion of ethical issues and cost-effectiveness. In this review, advantages and disadvantages of each guideline are discussed. These findings are supposed to help improving burn care procedures worldwide.
    • Correction
    • Source
    • Cite
    • Save
    • Machine Reading By IdeaReader
    33
    References
    0
    Citations
    NaN
    KQI
    []