Open Access

Epidemiological and cost analysis of burn injuries admitted to the emergency department of a tertiary burn center

  • Tolga Eser1,
  • Cemil Kavalci1,
  • Cem Aydogan2 and
  • Afsin Emre Kayipmaz1Email author
SpringerPlus20165:1411

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3107-3

Received: 7 June 2016

Accepted: 19 August 2016

Published: 24 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Burn injury is an emergency medical condition that rapidly develops as a result of tissue exposure to electrical, chemical or thermal energy. Therefore, its treatment usually begins at the emergency department. In this study we aimed to perform an epidemiological analysis of burn injuries presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary burn center, and factors affecting the cost of their medical care.

Methods

Patients who presented to Baskent University Ankara Hospital Adult Emergency Department with burn injuries between January 2012 and December 2014 were studied for age, sex, time of admission, type of burn injury, clinical prognosis, mortality rate, percent burn area, and total cost of care. A total of 264 patients were enrolled. Chi square test was used for the comparison of categorical variables. Non-parametric tests were used for the comparison of continuous variables.

Results

This study included 179 (67.8 %) women and 85 (32.2 %) men. The most common types of burn injuries were hot water burns and scalding. Eleven point seven percent of the patients sustained burn injuries in occupational accidents. 95.1 % of the patients were discharged from the emergency and 4.5 % of them were hospitalized. Only 1 (0.4 %) patient died. There was no significant difference between patient outcomes (discharge vs. hospital admission) with respect to the cost of care (p = 0.846) No significant difference was found between the cost of care of surgical and non-surgical management of burn injuries (p = 0.206). No significant difference was found between the costs of care of different types of burn injuries (p = 0.053). There was a significant difference between burn degrees with respect to the cost of care (p = 0.038). A significant difference was found between the costs of care of patients with a percent burn area of less than 10 % and those with a percent burn area of more than 10 % (p < 0.001), indicating that as percent burn area increased, a proportional increase occurred in the cost of care.

Conclusions

Burn degree and percent burn area were the main determinants of the cost of care of burn injuries. In conclusion, burn injuries are preventable by taking occupational measures and raising public awareness about domestic accidents.

Keywords

Burns Cost analysis Emergency treatment Epidemiology

Background

Burn injury is an emergency medical condition that rapidly develops as a result of tissue exposure to electrical, chemical or thermal energy. Therefore, its treatment usually begins at the emergency department. Since a significant proportion of patients affected by burn injury are admitted to the emergency department immediately after the incident, healthcare staff working in the emergency department should have a good command of these cases (Alharbi et al. 2012). After providing first medical aid at the emergency department, it is imperative that multiple departments, particularly general surgery and plastic surgery, cooperate for the management of burn injuries (Ilhan et al. 2012).

A major proportion of patients with burn injuries are discharged from the emergency department once outpatient treatment and follow-up is scheduled (Yolcu et al. 2013). When hospital admissions are taken into account, however, burn injuries are a significant source of mortality and morbidity (Sever et al. 2011). Furthermore, demanding medical care of these patients gives rise to the high cost of care depending on burn percentage, degree, as well as the duration of hospital stay (Hazar et al. 2013). Hence, taking preventive measures to avoid these injuries is the key to success for their management. Emergency physicians who assume a critical role in the management of burn injuries should necessarily have knowledge of the most common types of burn injuries and their cost of care in the emergency department.

In this study we aimed to perform an epidemiological analysis of burn injuries presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary burn center, and factors affecting the cost of their medical care.

Methods

This retrospective descriptive study was conducted after being approved by Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee (Project No: KA14/282 Date of Approval: 15.10.2014). Patients who presented to Baskent University Ankara Hospital Adult Emergency Department with burn injuries between January 2012 and December 2014 were studied for age, sex, time of admission, type of burn injury, clinical prognosis, mortality rate, percent burn area, and total cost of care. A total of 264 patients were enrolled.

Hospital automation system was used to access patients’ medical data including age; sex; hour, month, and year of admission; cause and type of burn injury; occupational and suicidal nature of burn injury; burn degree; percent burn area; surgical intervention if performed; indications for admission according to the rule of nines; post-treatment clinical status, regular attendance to follow-up visits; and cost of care denominated in Euro (€). The sum for treatment cost has been obtained by adding up the invoice amounts of the inpatients and all the check-ins to the emergency department and burns outpatient department.

International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes T30, T31, and T32 were used to determine and record burn injuries. Statistical analyses were done with “SPSS 17.0 for Windows” software package. Chi-square test was used for the comparison of categorical variables. The distribution of continuous variables was assessed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Non-parametric tests were used for the comparison of continuous variables.

The correlation between various variables and cost of care was analyzed with the Spearman’s correlation test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

This study included 179 (67.8 %) women and 85 (32.2 %) men. Thirty-four (12.9 %) patients were admitted to emergency department between 00:00 and 06:00; 15 (5.7 %) between 06:00 and 12:00; 74 (28 %) between 12:00 and 18:00; and 141 (53.4 %) between 18:00 and 24:00. The monthly distribution of the emergency department admissions for burn injuries was shown in Table 1. Accordingly, patients suffering from burns check into emergency department most frequently between 18:00 and 24:00 and in June.
Table 1

Monthly distribution of admissions for burn injuries

Month

Number (n)

Percentage (%)

January

24

9.1

February

25

9.5

March

23

8.7

April

19

7.2

May

28

10.6

June

38

14.4

July

32

12.1

August

20

7.6

September

14

5.3

October

13

4.9

November

18

6.8

December

10

3.8

Total

264

100.0

Seventy-seven (29.2 %) patients were admitted in 2012; 126 (47.7 %) in 2013; and 61 (23.1 %) in 2014. One hundred and ninety-five (73.9 %) patients were admitted for hot water burns-scalding; 25 (9.5 %) for flame burns; 24 (9.1 %) for hot contact burns; 18 (6.8 %) for chemical and 2 (0.8 %) for electric burns. The most common types of burn injuries were hot water burns and scalding. Thirty-one (11.7 %) patients sustained burn injuries in occupational accidents and 233 (88.3 %) in non-occupational accidents. There was no suicidal burn injury in our study. Two hundred and fifty-one (95.1 %) patients were discharged from the emergency department and 12 (4.5 %) were hospitalized. Only 1 (0.4 %) patient died. 70.8 % of the patients involved (n = 187) are found to have attended to outpatient clinic controls, and 28.8 % have not.

There was no significant difference between patient outcomes (discharge vs. hospital admission) with respect to the cost of care (p = 0.846) (Table 2).
Table 2

Comparison of cost of care by patient outcome

Outcome

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

Discharge

251

25.14

21.84

0.846*

Hospital admission

12

26.10

31.58

IQR inter-quartile range

* MannWhitney-U test

It was found that there was no statistically significant difference between the gender-based groups (p = 0.079) (Table 3).
Table 3

Comparison of gender-based groups in terms of costs

Gender

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

Female

179

24.22

19.26

0.079*

Male

85

27.77

28.96

IQR inter-quartile range

* MannWhitney-U test

It was found that there was no statistically significant difference between the patients who were older versus younger than 50 (p = 0.593) (Table 4).
Table 4

Comparison of age-based groups in terms of costs

Age

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

<50

214

25.25

20.71

0.593

≥50

50

26.16

26.99

There was a significant difference between the years of admission with respect to the cost of care (p < 0.001). Based on the annual analysis, the highest cost of care was incurred in 2012 and the lowest in 2014 (Table 5).
Table 5

Comparison of the cost of burn care in different years of admission

Year of admission

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

2012

77

30.29

27.50

<0.001*

2013

126

26.24

20.44

2014

61

17.50

10.49

IQR inter-quartile range

* Kruskal–Wallis test

No significant difference was found between the cost of care of surgical and non-surgical management of burn injuries (p = 0.206) (Table 6).
Table 6

Comparison of costs of care of surgical versus non-surgical management of burn injuries

Surgical intervention

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

Min

Max

p value

Not performed

258

25.09

21.61

5.96

190.93

0.206*

Performed

6

48.29

254.23

9.60

475.52

IQR inter-quartile range, min minimum, max maximum

* MannWhitney-U test

No significant difference was found between the costs of care of different types of burn injuries (p = 0.053) (Table 7).
Table 7

Comparison of the costs of care of different types of burn injury

Cause of burn injury

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

Hot water-scalding

195

25.96

21.27

0.053*

Flame

25

29.05

73.05

Contact with hot

24

18.37

13.43

Chemical

18

18.60

24.92

Electric

2

23.74

IQR inter-quartile range

* Kruskal–Wallis test

There was a significant difference between burn degrees with respect to the cost of care (p = 0.038). The second degree burns incurred the highest cost of care while the third degree burns led to the lowest cost of care (Table 8).
Table 8

Comparison of treatment costs by burn degree

Burn degree

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

1. Degree

49

23.29

16.21

0.038*

2. Degree

208

26.24

24.28

 

3. Degree

7

14.70

4.63

 

* Kruskal–Wallis test

IQR inter-quartile range

A significant difference was found between the costs of care of patients with a percent burn area of less than 10 % and those with a percent burn area of more than 10 % (p = 0.001), indicating that as percent burn area increased, a proportional increase occurred in the cost of care (Table 9).
Table 9

Comparison of cost of care by percent burn area

Percent burn area

Number of patients

Median (€)

IQR

p value

Percent burn area < %10

250

24.93

20.17

<0.001*

Percent burn area ≥ %10

14

75.00

75.54

IQR inter-quartile range

* MannWhitney-U test

There was a significant positive correlation between age and treatment cost (r = 0.184, p = 0.003), and also between percent burn area and treatment cost (r = 0.804, p < 0.001).

According to the descriptive statistics table, it was found that those who have 2.degree burns belong to the highest age group and those who have 3.degree burns belong to the lowest age group (Table 10).
Table 10

Age of the patients versus burn degree

 

Median (year)

IQR

1. Degree

29.00

19.00

2. Degree

35.00

23.00

3. Degree

30.00

11.00

According to the descriptive statistics table, the most frequent reason of burns for the older age group is flame burnt while the most frequent reason for young age groups is contacted with hot objects (Table 11).
Table 11

Patient age versus reason of burns

Cause of burn injury

Median (year)

IQR

Hot water-scalding

32.00

22.00

Flame

37.00

21.00

Contact with hot

26.50

25.00

Chemical

31.00

13.00

Electric

31.50

Of the patients, those who were applied surgical intervention were older than those who were not applied surgical intervention (Table 12).
Table 12

Patient age versus surgical intervention

Surgical intervention

Median (year)

IQR

Not performed

32.50

21.00

Performed

38.00

38.00

Hospitalized patients are of higher age group while those who were discharged from hospital were the lowest (Table 13).
Table 13

Age of patient versus clinical outcome

 

Median (year)

IQR

Discharge

32.00

21.00

Hospital admission

37.00

28.00

Discussion

According to our study, there is no statistically significant difference between the patients’ discharged from the hospital versus hospitalized statuses in terms of costs (p = 0.846). We consider that the reason for above concern is that the cost analysis figures were including the costs arising from patients’ subsequent applications to burns outpatient department. Accordingly, we think that outpatient treatment versus inpatient treatment does not make a difference in terms of treatment costs. And despite the apparently higher costs of the patients who were applied surgical intervention; our statistical analysis has shown that there was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.206). Considering the variables such as the need for general anesthesia, the materials used, the necessity of multidisciplinary approach we expect the cost of the patients who are subject to surgical intervention, be higher. As a result of our study, we observed no significant difference between the cost versus the reason of the burns (p = 0.053). However, it is observed that the burns which occur due to flame exposure result in remarkably higher costs. No statistically significant data has been observed between patient age versus cost (p = 0.593). There is a statistically significant difference between the degree of the burn versus cost (respectively p < 0.001 and p = 0.038). This means that the cost is determined by the burnt area and its degree rather than the patient’s age.

Our study revealed that, among burn survivors admitted to our emergency department, female burn survivors were 2.1 times more common than male burn survivors. This was in contrast to a study by Saritas et al. (2011), which reported that 65 % of burn survivors who were admitted to the emergency department were male. We believe that more female survivors were admitted in our series due to the proximity of our hospital to residential areas and small-sized workplaces and its remoteness to industrial areas.

The median age of our study population was 33 years. Kowal-Vern et al. (2014) similarly reported a median age of 30 years for burn injury survivors. We think that the reason for young adults suffering from burns is observed more frequently is because these individuals are more active at home and at work. Young adults are more open to traumas and therefore the burns due to their motor-vehicle use, alcohol consumption and that they can work under heavy-duty labor requirements.

The most frequent time period for admissions was between 18:00 and 00:00 (54.4 %). DeKoning et al. (2009) also reported that admissions for burn injuries most commonly took place between 18:00 and 19:00. We considered that spending more time in low-safety, uncontrolled places and at kitchen during this period caused an increase in the burn injuries.

In our study, the most common types of burn injury were, in descending order of frequency, hot water burns-scalding, flame burns, and burns by contact with hot substances/surfaces. This finding was in agreement with that reported by Kowal-Vern et al. (2014). However, Avsarogullari et al. (2003) and Ahn and Maitz (2012) reported that flame burns were the most common types of burn injury followed by scalding. The study of Avsarogullari et al. (2003), as it can be seen in our study, consists of burn patients who check into the emergency department. As for Ahn and Maitz’s (2012) study, it did not consist of emergency service patients but inpatients of the burns unit. This can be one of the authentic properties of our study among other studies within the literature. Our finding may be a reflection of our hospital’s proximity to residential areas and small-sized workplaces.

As the majority of our cases were minor burn injuries, the median percent burn area was only 2 %. In the literature, percent burn area has been variably reported (Kowal-Vern et al. 2014; Avsarogullari et al. 2003; Aksoy et al. 2014; Sahin et al. 2011). This suggests that in our patients burn injuries may have occurred in different ways at home, workplace, or many other different settings, and thus the range of burn degrees may have been diverse.

Our study demonstrated that second-degree burns were the most common burn degree (78.78 %), a finding that was similarly reported by many other studies (DeKoning et al. 2009; Avsarogullari et al. 2003; Burton et al. 2009). Although it may show variability by different causes of burn injury, it is possible that the second-degree burn injuries were more common in patients with flame or scalding burn injuries.

According to our results, 11.7 % of burn injuries occurred in occupational accidents. Karami Matin et al. (2012) reported that occupational burn injuries constituted 28.5 % of their cases. This finding suggests that recent national measures taken for occupational health and safety have raised workers’ awareness about burn injuries and transformed workplaces to safer environments.

In our study we found that surgical treatment was used in 2.3 % patients with burn injuries. This low number possibly resulted from the mildness of burn injuries in our patients.

Similar to what Sahin et al. (2011) reported, we found that cost of care was not significantly different between various causes of burn injuries. We determined that flame burns were associated with higher cost of care, as Karami Matin et al. (2012) reported.

The cost of care of burn injuries with a percent burn area of less than 10 % was lower than that of burn injuries occupying more than 10 % of body surface area. This suggests that cost of care is affected by percent burn area. Ahn and Maitz (2012) also demonstrated that an increase in percent burn area was the primary factor leading to a proportional increase in cost of care. In patients with a greater percent burn area, hospitalization may be prolonged and complications may develop. Furthermore, increased use of workforce and medical materials lead to increased cost of care (Ahn and Maitz 2012).

We found a significant difference between burn degrees with regard to the cost of care. Burn degree and depth are similarly known to affect patient prognosis. In our study, the cost of care of second-degree burns was greater than third degree burns. Follow-up appointments of second-degree burn injuries are recommended to be spaced more closely to avoid complications. This probably led to a higher cost by increasing the number of procedures performed and medical equipment used at each visit, increasing overall cost in our study. We failed to detect any significant difference between the cost of care of patients managed surgically versus non-surgically (p = 0.206). Jansen et al. (2012), however, reported that early surgery allowed cost saving by decreasing the duration of hospital stay.

Conclusions

The proximity to our hospital to residential areas and small-sized workplaces led to a greater percentage of hot water-scalding injuries that presented to our emergency department. Burn degree and percent burn area were the main determinants of the cost of care of burn injuries. In conclusion, burn injuries are preventable by taking occupational measures and raising public awareness about domestic accidents.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

TA, CK, and AEK conceived of the study, collected the data and participated in its design and coordination and drafted the manuscript. CA participated in the design of the study and helped to perform the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Emergency, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University
(2)
Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University

References

  1. Ahn CS, Maitz PK (2012) The true cost of burn. Burns 38:967–974View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksoy N, Arli S, Yigit O (2014) A retrospective analysis of the burn injury patients records in the emergency department, an epidemiologic study. Emerg (Tehran) 2:115–120Google Scholar
  3. Alharbi Z, Piatkowski A, Dembinski R, Reckort S, Grieb G, Kauczok J, Pallua N (2012) Treatment of burns in the first 24 hours: simple and practical guide by answering 10 questions in a step-by-step form. World J Emerg Surg 7:13View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Avsarogullari L, Sozuer E, Ikizceli I, Kekec Z, Yurumez Y, Ozkan S (2003) Adult burn injuries in an emergency department in Central Anatolia, Turkey: a 5-year analysis. Burns 29:571–577View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton KR, Sharma VK, Harrop R, Lindsay R (2009) A population-based study of the epidemiology of acute adult burn injuries in the Calgary Health Region and factors associated with mortality and hospital length of stay from 1995 to 2004. Burns 35:572–579View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. DeKoning EP, Hakenewerth A, Platts-Mills TF, Tintinalli JE (2009) Epidemiology of burn injuries presenting to North Carolina emergency departments in 2006–2007. Burns 35:776–782View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Hazar E, Ince AR, Cam S, Karagoz N (2013) Cost analysis of service businesses: the cost analysis of hospitalized patients in Numune Hospital burn unit of Sivas. BMSIJ 1:156–167Google Scholar
  8. Ilhan E, Dal O, Yakan S, Cengiz F (2012) Evaluation of the burn patients presenting to emergency clinic of an education hospital. J Clin Anal Med 3:268–270Google Scholar
  9. Jansen LA, Hynes SL, Macadam SA, Papp A (2012) Reduced length of stay in hospital for burn patients following a change in practice guidelines: financial implications. J Burn Care Res 33:e275–e279View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Karami Matin B, Karami Matin R, Ahmadi Joybari T, Ghahvehei N, Haghi M, Ahmadi M, Rezaei S (2012) Epidemiological data, outcome, and costs of burn patients in Kermanshah. Ann Burns Fire Disasters 25:171–177Google Scholar
  11. Kowal-Vern A, Bokhari F, Poulakidas S (2014) Demographic comparison of burn emergency only visits and admissions in an urban burn center. J Burn Care Res. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0000000000000197 Google Scholar
  12. Sahin I, Ozturk S, Alhan D, Acikel C, Isik S (2011) Cost analysis of acute burn patients treated in a burn centre: the Gulhane experience. Ann Burns Fire Disasters 24:9–13Google Scholar
  13. Saritas A, Cikman M, Candar M, Kandis H, Baltaci D (2011) Retrospective analysis of judicial burn cases admitted to our clinic: 4-year experience. Duzce Med J 13:29–33Google Scholar
  14. Sever C, Kulahci Y, Duman H (2011) Prediction of mortality and causes of death in a burn centre: a retrospective clinical study. J Clin Anal Med 2:24–26View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Yolcu S, Beceren NG, Timucin H, Uludag U (2013) Emergency service admissions of patients with burn injury. J Clin Exp Investig 4:285–288View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016