[Observation on the effects of multidisciplinary comprehensive intervention in integrated treatment of patients with...

Objective: To explore the effects of multidisciplinary comprehensive intervention in integrated treatment of patients with extremely severe burns. Methods: One hundred and ten patients hospitalized in our center from July 2013 to August 2017 met the criteria for inclusion in this study, and their medical records were retrospectively analyzed. According to the medical model at that time, 56 patients hospitalized from July 2013 to July 2015 received routine comprehensive treatment led by doctors, and they were included in the conventional intervention group. From August 2015 to August 2017, 54 patients were treated with integrated multidisciplinary interventions performed by a team consisting of physicians, intensive care nurses, burn nurses, intravenous infusion nurses, wound stoma nurses, and rehabilitation therapists, and they were included in the integrated intervention group. Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Assessment Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) scores on admission and 4 weeks after treatment, incidences of pressure injury, wound sepsis, lung infection, and catheter-related infection during hospitalization, length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) and total length of hospital stay, and Abbreviated Burn Specific Health Scale (BSHS-A) scores at discharge and 3 months after discharge were analyzed. Data were processed with t-test and chi-square test. Results: The APACHE Ⅱ scores of patients in the two groups were close on admission (t=0.573, P>0.05). Four weeks after treatment, the APACHE Ⅱ scores of patients in the two groups were obviously lower than those on admission within the same group (t=5.697, 4.853, P<0.01), and the score of the integrated intervention group was obviously lower than that of the conventional intervention group (t=2.170, P<0.05). No pressure injury was observed in patients of any group during hospitalization. The incidences of wound sepsis, lung infection, and catheter-related infection of patients in the integrated intervention group were 18.5% (10/54), 3.7% (2/54), and 9.3% (5/54), respectively, significantly lower than 42.9% (24/56), 21.4% (12/56), and 26.8% (15/56) of the conventional intervention group, χ²=4.073, 6.075, 3.962, P<0.05. The length of stay in ICU of patients in the integrated intervention group was (50±5) d, obviously shorter than (62±4) d of the conventional intervention group (t=2.852, P<0.01). The total length of hospital stay of patients in the integrated intervention group was (115±8) d, obviously shorter than (140±7) d of the conventional intervention group (t=16.885, P<0.01). At discharge and 3 months after discharge, the scores of BSHS-A, physical function, psychological function, and general health status of 50 patients in the integrated intervention group were significantly higher than those of 48 patients in the conventional intervention group (t=2.886, 3.126, 2.416, 2.544, 2.033, 3.471, 2.588, 2.210, P<0.05 or P<0.01), while the scores of social function of patients in the two groups were close (t=1.570, 1.350, P>0.05). Conclusions: Integrative treatment of patients with extremely severe burns by multidisciplinary comprehensive intervention can significantly alleviate the severity of burns, reduce the incidences of wound sepsis, lung infection, and catheter-related infection, shorten the length of stay in ICU and total length of hospital stay, and improve the quality of life.