The latest medical research on Burns

To evaluate the effectiveness of a mental health screening form for early identification and care escalation of mental health issues in general settings. A secondary aim was to explore general nurses' use of the form and their confidence to discuss mental health issues with patients.

A cross-sectional design comprising a review of clinical records to determine use of the form, instances of missed care and escalation to the mental health team. The survey focused on nurses' confidence in general settings to engage in discussions with patients about mental health. Data were collected from April to December 2022. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement guided this study.

Of 400 patient records, 397 were analysed; 293 (73.8%) of those had mental health screening by nurses. Age was a significant factor, with younger patients more likely to be screened although concerns were typically recognized in older patients. Of the 20 patients identified with mental health concerns, 9 (45%) were referred for further evaluation by the Clinical Liaison Team. While nurses were proactive in assessing physical risks, assessing risk factors that required deeper conversations with patients, including psychiatric history, was lacking. The survey highlighted fewer than half of the respondents (46%, n = 10) felt competent to engage in discussions about mental health; however, most (59%, n = 13) knew when to seek a mental health referral.

General nurses have a role in the early identification and referral of patients with mental health challenges. However, training is imperative to facilitate deeper patient interactions concerning mental health. Integrating mental health checks within general settings is crucial for early detection and intervention, aligning with global quality care standards.

STROBE guidelines.

We received feedback that shaped the research protocol from a consumer representative.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reignited a commitment from the health policy and health services research communities to rebuilding trust in healthcare and created a renewed appetite for measures of trust for system monitoring and evaluation. The aim of the present paper was to develop a multidimensional measure of trust in healthcare that: (1) Is responsive to the conceptual and methodological limitations of existing measures; (2) Can be used to identify systemic explanations for lower levels of trust in equity-deserving populations; (3) Can be used to design and evaluate interventions aiming to (re)build trust.

We conducted a 2021 review of existing measures of trust in healthcare, 72 qualitative interviews (Aug-Dec 2021; oversampling for equity-deserving populations), an expert review consensus process (Oct 2021), and factor analyses and validation testing based on two waves of survey data (Nov 2021, n = 694; Jan-Feb 2022, n = 740 respectively).

We present the Trust in Multidimensional Healthcare Systems Scale (TIMHSS); a 38-item correlated three-factor measure of trust in doctors, policies, and the system. Measurement of invariance tests suggest that the TIMHSS can also be reliably administered to diverse populations.

This global measure of trust in healthcare can be used to measure trust over time at a population level, or used within specific subpopulations, to inform interventions to (re)build trust. It can also be used within a clinical setting to provide a stronger evidence base for associations between trust and therapeutic outcomes.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) established the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR) in 2014 to address exposure concerns for veterans who have served in military operations in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan. By 2021, over 236,086 veterans completed the online questionnaire and 60% requested an AHOBPR examination. Of those requesting an exam, only 12% had an exam recorded in their medical record. This article summarizes barriers and facilitators to delivering AHOBPR exams and shares lessons learned from facilities who have successfully implemented burn pit exams for veterans.

We (I.C.C and J.H.) constructed a key performance measure of AHOBPR examination (the ratio of examinations performed in facility over examinations assigned to a facility) to identify top performing facilities and then used stratified purposeful sampling among high-performing sites to recruit a diverse set of facilities for participation. We (P.V.C. and A.A.) recruited and interviewed key personnel at these facilities about their process of administering burn pit exams. Rapid qualitative methods were used to analyze interviews.

The ratio of exams performed to exams assigned ranged from 0.00 to 14.50 for the 129 facilities with available information. Twelve interviews were conducted with a total of 19 participants from 10 different facilities. We identified 3 barriers: Unclear responsibility, limited incentives and competing duties for personnel involved, and constrained resources. Facilitators included the presence of an internal facilitator, additional staff support, and coordination across a facility's departments to provide care.

Gaps across many VHA facilities to provide AHOBPR exams may be understood as stemming from organizational issues related to clear delegation of responsibility and staffing issues. VHA facilities that wish to increase AHOBPR exams for veterans may need additional administrative and medical staff.