Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 17;1(6):1250-1254.
doi: 10.1002/emp2.12280. eCollection 2020 Dec.

Burn patient decontamination outside of mass casualties

Scott B Davidson  1 , Nathan Brunken  2 , Shannon Naughton  3 , Sheri L VandenBerg  1
Affiliations

Burn patient decontamination outside of mass casualties

Scott B Davidson et al. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. .

Abstract

Objective: Decontamination protocols for victims of mass casualty events are well documented and emphasized to protect physicians, nurses and facilities. Decontamination practices outside of mass casualty events are unknown. This pilot study was undertaken to assess the current practices of burn patient decontamination outside of mass casualty events within level I and II trauma center emergency departments in the state of Michigan.

Methods: Using the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Project membership, a 10-question online survey was sent to trauma program managers at all level I and II trauma centers in Michigan. Survey questions focused on institutional decontamination protocols and consistency of use.

Results: Survey response was 50%. Of the responding facilities, 31% did not decontaminate burn patients. Of the centers who indicated that they did decontaminate burn patients, 31% did not follow a standardized protocol. Our survey revealed that 69% of facilities used a protocol for decontamination: 45% used the protocol consistently on all burns, and 55% at physician discretion. Products used most frequently to decontaminate burn patients included water (100%) followed by soap (44%).

Conclusion: This pilot survey of level I and II trauma centers in the state of Michigan revealed variability in the use of burn patient decontamination protocols and consistency of use. Additional research is warranted to determine if our results are reflective of trauma centers nationally.

Keywords: burn patient decontamination protocols; chemicals; hazardous; secondary contamination.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors have no source of funding to report.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Burn decontamination practices by type of burn. *Other response was “any concerns for additional exposure in all types of burns, for example, a flame burn that is suspected METH lab explosion”
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. US Department of Homeland Security, UD Department of Health and Human Services. Patient decontamination in a mass chemical exposure incident: national planning for communities. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Patient%20Decon%20Na.... Published December 2014. Accessed June 3, 2019.
    1. Briggs SM. Advanced Disaster Medical Response Manual for Providers. 2nd ed Woodbury, CT: Cine´‐Med Publishing; 2014.
    1. Disaster Subcommittee, Committee on Trauma, American College of Surgeons. Disaster Management and Emergency Preparedness. 2nd ed Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2018.
    1. Titus E, Lemmer G, Slagley J, Eninger R. A review of CBRN topics related to military and civilian patient exposure and decontamination. Am J Disaster Med. 2019;14:137‐149. - PubMed
    1. Tan T, Wong DSY. Chemical burns revisited: what is the most appropriate method of decontamination?. Burns. 2015;41:761‐763. - PubMed