Purpose: Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI) are potentially lethal infections marked by local tissue destruction and systemic sepsis, which require aggressive treatment. Survivors often face a long recovery trajectory. This study was initiated to increase understanding of the long-term impact of NSTI on health related quality of life (HRQoL), and how care may be improved. Methods: Thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data from 25 NSTI-survivors obtained through two focus groups (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 11). Results: The median age of the participants was 49 years, 14 were female. The median time since diagnosis was 5 years. Initial misdiagnosis was common, causing delay to treatment. Survivors experienced long-term physical consequences (scarring, cognitive impairment, fatigue, sleeping problems, recurrent infections), psychological consequences (traumatic stress symptoms, fear of relapse, adjusting to an altered appearance, sexual issues) and social and relational consequences (changes in social contacts, a lack of understanding). The disease also had a major psychological impact on family members, as well as major financial impact in some. There was a strong desire to reflect on ‘mistakes’ in case of initial misdiagnosis. To improve care, patient and family centered care, smooth transitions after discharge, and the availability of understandable information were deemed important. Conclusion: This study reveals that NSTI have a large impact on physical and psychosocial wellbeing of survivors and their relatives. Except for a few differences (misdiagnosis, fear for re-infection and actual re-infection), the patient experience of patients with NSTI is largely similar to those of burn survivors. Thus, questionnaires to assess HRQoL in burn survivors may be used in future NSTI studies.

Background: Implementing innovations emerging from clinical research can be challenging. Thermal imagers provide an accessible diagnostic tool to increase the accuracy of burn wound depth assessment. This mixed-methods implementation study aimed to assess the barriers and facilitators, design implementation strategies, and guide the implementation process of thermal imaging in the outpatient clinic of a burn centre. Methods: This study was conducted between September 2022 and February 2023 in Beverwijk, The Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews with burn physicians guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted to identify barriers and facilitators. Based on the barriers, implementation strategies were developed with the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool, and disseminated to support the uptake of the thermal imager. Subsequently, thermal imaging was implemented in daily practice, and an iterative RE-AIM approach was used to evaluate the implementation process. Results: Common facilitators for the implementation of the thermal imager were the low complexity, the relative advantage above other diagnostic tools, and benefits for patients. Common barriers were physicians’ attitude towards and perceived value of the intervention, the low compatibility with the current workflow, and a lack of knowledge about existing evidence. Six implementation strategies were developed: creating a formal implementation blueprint, promoting adaptability, developing educational materials, facilitation, conducting ongoing training, and identifying early adopters. These strategies resulted in the effective implementation of the thermal imager, reflected by a >70% reach among eligible patients, and >80% effectiveness and adoption. Throughout the implementation process, compatibility, and available resources remained barriers, resulting in low ratings on RE-AIM dimensions. Conclusions: This study developed implementation strategies based on the identified CFIR constructs that impacted the implementation of a thermal imager for burn wound assessment in our outpatient clinic. The experiences and findings of this study could be leveraged to guide the implementation of thermal imaging and other innovations in burn care.

Mesh grafting and Meek micrografting are split-thickness skin graft expansion techniques. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Meek and Mesh expansion ratios 1:2 and 1:3 in smaller wounds. An intra-patient randomized controlled trial was conducted at two burn centers (the Netherlands and Belgium). Wound outcomes, e.g., take rate, re-epithelialization rate, and donor site size, were measured. At 3 months post-surgery, patient preference and scar quality were evaluated with the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), cutometer and dermaspectrometer. Seventy patients with a TBSA of 10 ± 10% (mean ± SD) were included. The take rate was 79 ± 25% vs. 87 ± 19% (p = 0.003), Meek vs. Mesh, respectively. At follow-up, a majority of observer and patient POSAS items were statistically significantly lower, corresponding with better scar quality for Mesh grafting compared to Meek micrografting. The scar elasticity was 0.37 ± 0.20 vs. 0.42 ± 0.21 (p = 0.013) and mean melanin 13.3 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 7.7 (p = 0.019) for Meek vs. Mesh, respectively, and the patient preference was 32%, 49%, and 19% for Meek, Mesh, and no preference. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant difference. In patients with smaller wounds, Mesh showed superiority on most wound and short-term scar results. Nevertheless, patient preference within the 1:3 expansion ratio group and donor site size were in favor of Meek.

Background: Frailty can have a negative influence on outcomes in elderly patients after burn injuries. The Dutch hospitals have used a four-domain frailty screening instrument from the Dutch Safety Management System (DSMS) since 2012. However, its feasibility and validity have hardly been studied. We aim to assess the feasibility and validity of frailty screening in specialized burn care. Methods: A multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted in all Dutch burn centres. Patients aged ≥ 70, with a primary admission between 2012–2018, were included. Data were derived from electronic patient files. Results: In total, 515 patients were included. Frailty screening was complete in 39.6% and partially complete in 23.9%. Determinants for a complete screening were admission after 2015 (OR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.42–3.25) and lower percentage TBSA burned (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.05–029). In all completely screened patients, 49.9% were at risk of frailty. At risk patients were older, had more comorbidities (known group validity), a longer length of stay, and more frequently a non-home discharge (predictive validity). Conclusion: Frailty screening in specialized burn care is feasible and was conducted in 63.5% of admitted patients. In total, 44% of screened patients were at risk of frailty. Validity of frailty screening was confirmed. Frailty screening can contribute to optimal specialized burn care.