The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use

•The cost of purchasing and using LDI is a key barrier for burn centers.•The national health insurance should provide a reimbursement per scanned patient.•Inadequate reimbursement for conservative management encourages excess surgery.•The reluctance to accept the scientific evidence of LDI restricts...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Burns 2021-12, Vol.47 (8), p.1783-1792
Hauptverfasser: Claes, Karel E.Y., Hoeksema, Henk, Robbens, Cedric, Verbelen, Jozef, Dhooghe, Nicolas S., De Decker, Ignace, Monstrey, Stan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1792
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1783
container_title Burns
container_volume 47
creator Claes, Karel E.Y.
Hoeksema, Henk
Robbens, Cedric
Verbelen, Jozef
Dhooghe, Nicolas S.
De Decker, Ignace
Monstrey, Stan
description •The cost of purchasing and using LDI is a key barrier for burn centers.•The national health insurance should provide a reimbursement per scanned patient.•Inadequate reimbursement for conservative management encourages excess surgery.•The reluctance to accept the scientific evidence of LDI restricts its routine use.•Organizational structures are a major barrier for the proper implementation of LDI. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50–75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. 1. Informative interviews with 15 representatives of burn centers without LDI. 2. A survey among 51 burn centers with LDI by means of an extensive questionnaire. 3. In-depth interviews with 21 of the participating centers. 1. All 15 centers without LDI indicated that cost of purchase in combination with maintenance of the LDI device, as well as personnel costs were the reason for not buying, while 12 (80%) also rated the current scientific evidence as insufficient. 2. Twenty-seven burn centers with an LDI (53%) participated and filled in almost the entire questionnaire. In 5 centers, cost delayed the purchase of LDI. The hospital/department paid for the LDI device in 62% of the burn centers and in 88% also for maintenance and salaries. The LDI operators were mainly surgeons (47%) or nurses (42%). In more than half of the burn centers (52%), between 2 and 5 people were trained and certified to use an LDI. In 50% of burn centers, the interpretation of the LDI scan was done by the same person doing the actual measurements. Eighty-nine percent of the burn centers considered the accuracy of the LDI scan as mainly to almost completely accurate. In case of real discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and LDI, in 48% of the burn centers (13/27) the surgeon still relied more on the clinical diagnosis despite reporting this high or almost complete accuracy rate of the LDI. Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skep
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.burns.2021.01.014
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2497113797</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0305417921000218</els_id><sourcerecordid>2497113797</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-d1d05045a069a1ce197619e2fd66f4f3fb3619a51644d3e3eb4a0a234d774f803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UF1LwzAUDaK4-fELBMmjD2tNmrRpBB9kTh0MFJzPIU1vXEa7zqQV_Pe2bvro5cDlwjn33HsQuqAkpoRm1-u46PwmxAlJaEwG8AM0prmQEeVEHqIxYSSNOBVyhE5CWJO-0pwcoxFjWZpTLsaIL1eAF_dzPNu491pP8Iv2LZ7f4NcG151Z4a1vGjvBocGVa9sKcBfgDB1ZXQU43_dT9PYwW06fosXz43x6t4gMS2UblbQkKeGpJpnU1ACVIqMSEltmmeWW2YL1s05pxnnJgEHBNdEJ46UQ3OaEnaKr3d7-iI8OQqtqFwxUld5A0wWVcCkoZUKKnsp2VOObEDxYtfWu1v5LUaKGuNRa_cSlhrgUGcB71eXeoCtqKP80v_n0hNsdAfo3Px14FYyDjYHSeTCtKhv3r8E3ldx4-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2497113797</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Claes, Karel E.Y. ; Hoeksema, Henk ; Robbens, Cedric ; Verbelen, Jozef ; Dhooghe, Nicolas S. ; De Decker, Ignace ; Monstrey, Stan</creator><creatorcontrib>Claes, Karel E.Y. ; Hoeksema, Henk ; Robbens, Cedric ; Verbelen, Jozef ; Dhooghe, Nicolas S. ; De Decker, Ignace ; Monstrey, Stan</creatorcontrib><description>•The cost of purchasing and using LDI is a key barrier for burn centers.•The national health insurance should provide a reimbursement per scanned patient.•Inadequate reimbursement for conservative management encourages excess surgery.•The reluctance to accept the scientific evidence of LDI restricts its routine use.•Organizational structures are a major barrier for the proper implementation of LDI. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50–75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. 1. Informative interviews with 15 representatives of burn centers without LDI. 2. A survey among 51 burn centers with LDI by means of an extensive questionnaire. 3. In-depth interviews with 21 of the participating centers. 1. All 15 centers without LDI indicated that cost of purchase in combination with maintenance of the LDI device, as well as personnel costs were the reason for not buying, while 12 (80%) also rated the current scientific evidence as insufficient. 2. Twenty-seven burn centers with an LDI (53%) participated and filled in almost the entire questionnaire. In 5 centers, cost delayed the purchase of LDI. The hospital/department paid for the LDI device in 62% of the burn centers and in 88% also for maintenance and salaries. The LDI operators were mainly surgeons (47%) or nurses (42%). In more than half of the burn centers (52%), between 2 and 5 people were trained and certified to use an LDI. In 50% of burn centers, the interpretation of the LDI scan was done by the same person doing the actual measurements. Eighty-nine percent of the burn centers considered the accuracy of the LDI scan as mainly to almost completely accurate. In case of real discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and LDI, in 48% of the burn centers (13/27) the surgeon still relied more on the clinical diagnosis despite reporting this high or almost complete accuracy rate of the LDI. Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skepticism towards the scientific evidence supporting LDI use; and 3. organizational constraints combined with logistical limitations. Our recommendations for wider use of LDI technology include: 1. a cost-effective reimbursement of LDI use combined with a more appropriate valuation of expert conservative management compared to surgical therapy; 2. increased use of LDI for every mixed depth burn and; 3. specialized LDI teams to improve burn procedural flexibility and to enable embedding LDI use in the burn care routine. Implementing these measures would promote the highest standards for LDI measurements and interpretation resulting in optimal care with mutual benefits for the hospital, for burn care teams and, most importantly, for the patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-4179</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1409</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2021.01.014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33658147</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Burn Units ; Burns ; Burns - diagnostic imaging ; Burns - therapy ; Cost-effectiveness ; Humans ; Laser Doppler imaging ; Laser-Doppler Flowmetry - methods ; Logistics ; Skin ; Survey ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Unnecessary surgery</subject><ispartof>Burns, 2021-12, Vol.47 (8), p.1783-1792</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-d1d05045a069a1ce197619e2fd66f4f3fb3619a51644d3e3eb4a0a234d774f803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-d1d05045a069a1ce197619e2fd66f4f3fb3619a51644d3e3eb4a0a234d774f803</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2676-5485 ; 0000-0002-5960-6248</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417921000218$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33658147$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Claes, Karel E.Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoeksema, Henk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbens, Cedric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verbelen, Jozef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhooghe, Nicolas S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Decker, Ignace</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monstrey, Stan</creatorcontrib><title>The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use</title><title>Burns</title><addtitle>Burns</addtitle><description>•The cost of purchasing and using LDI is a key barrier for burn centers.•The national health insurance should provide a reimbursement per scanned patient.•Inadequate reimbursement for conservative management encourages excess surgery.•The reluctance to accept the scientific evidence of LDI restricts its routine use.•Organizational structures are a major barrier for the proper implementation of LDI. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50–75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. 1. Informative interviews with 15 representatives of burn centers without LDI. 2. A survey among 51 burn centers with LDI by means of an extensive questionnaire. 3. In-depth interviews with 21 of the participating centers. 1. All 15 centers without LDI indicated that cost of purchase in combination with maintenance of the LDI device, as well as personnel costs were the reason for not buying, while 12 (80%) also rated the current scientific evidence as insufficient. 2. Twenty-seven burn centers with an LDI (53%) participated and filled in almost the entire questionnaire. In 5 centers, cost delayed the purchase of LDI. The hospital/department paid for the LDI device in 62% of the burn centers and in 88% also for maintenance and salaries. The LDI operators were mainly surgeons (47%) or nurses (42%). In more than half of the burn centers (52%), between 2 and 5 people were trained and certified to use an LDI. In 50% of burn centers, the interpretation of the LDI scan was done by the same person doing the actual measurements. Eighty-nine percent of the burn centers considered the accuracy of the LDI scan as mainly to almost completely accurate. In case of real discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and LDI, in 48% of the burn centers (13/27) the surgeon still relied more on the clinical diagnosis despite reporting this high or almost complete accuracy rate of the LDI. Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skepticism towards the scientific evidence supporting LDI use; and 3. organizational constraints combined with logistical limitations. Our recommendations for wider use of LDI technology include: 1. a cost-effective reimbursement of LDI use combined with a more appropriate valuation of expert conservative management compared to surgical therapy; 2. increased use of LDI for every mixed depth burn and; 3. specialized LDI teams to improve burn procedural flexibility and to enable embedding LDI use in the burn care routine. Implementing these measures would promote the highest standards for LDI measurements and interpretation resulting in optimal care with mutual benefits for the hospital, for burn care teams and, most importantly, for the patients.</description><subject>Burn Units</subject><subject>Burns</subject><subject>Burns - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Burns - therapy</subject><subject>Cost-effectiveness</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laser Doppler imaging</subject><subject>Laser-Doppler Flowmetry - methods</subject><subject>Logistics</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Survey</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Unnecessary surgery</subject><issn>0305-4179</issn><issn>1879-1409</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UF1LwzAUDaK4-fELBMmjD2tNmrRpBB9kTh0MFJzPIU1vXEa7zqQV_Pe2bvro5cDlwjn33HsQuqAkpoRm1-u46PwmxAlJaEwG8AM0prmQEeVEHqIxYSSNOBVyhE5CWJO-0pwcoxFjWZpTLsaIL1eAF_dzPNu491pP8Iv2LZ7f4NcG151Z4a1vGjvBocGVa9sKcBfgDB1ZXQU43_dT9PYwW06fosXz43x6t4gMS2UblbQkKeGpJpnU1ACVIqMSEltmmeWW2YL1s05pxnnJgEHBNdEJ46UQ3OaEnaKr3d7-iI8OQqtqFwxUld5A0wWVcCkoZUKKnsp2VOObEDxYtfWu1v5LUaKGuNRa_cSlhrgUGcB71eXeoCtqKP80v_n0hNsdAfo3Px14FYyDjYHSeTCtKhv3r8E3ldx4-A</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>Claes, Karel E.Y.</creator><creator>Hoeksema, Henk</creator><creator>Robbens, Cedric</creator><creator>Verbelen, Jozef</creator><creator>Dhooghe, Nicolas S.</creator><creator>De Decker, Ignace</creator><creator>Monstrey, Stan</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-5485</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5960-6248</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use</title><author>Claes, Karel E.Y. ; Hoeksema, Henk ; Robbens, Cedric ; Verbelen, Jozef ; Dhooghe, Nicolas S. ; De Decker, Ignace ; Monstrey, Stan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-d1d05045a069a1ce197619e2fd66f4f3fb3619a51644d3e3eb4a0a234d774f803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Burn Units</topic><topic>Burns</topic><topic>Burns - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Burns - therapy</topic><topic>Cost-effectiveness</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laser Doppler imaging</topic><topic>Laser-Doppler Flowmetry - methods</topic><topic>Logistics</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Survey</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Unnecessary surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Claes, Karel E.Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoeksema, Henk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbens, Cedric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verbelen, Jozef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dhooghe, Nicolas S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Decker, Ignace</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monstrey, Stan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Burns</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Claes, Karel E.Y.</au><au>Hoeksema, Henk</au><au>Robbens, Cedric</au><au>Verbelen, Jozef</au><au>Dhooghe, Nicolas S.</au><au>De Decker, Ignace</au><au>Monstrey, Stan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use</atitle><jtitle>Burns</jtitle><addtitle>Burns</addtitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1783</spage><epage>1792</epage><pages>1783-1792</pages><issn>0305-4179</issn><eissn>1879-1409</eissn><abstract>•The cost of purchasing and using LDI is a key barrier for burn centers.•The national health insurance should provide a reimbursement per scanned patient.•Inadequate reimbursement for conservative management encourages excess surgery.•The reluctance to accept the scientific evidence of LDI restricts its routine use.•Organizational structures are a major barrier for the proper implementation of LDI. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is still not an ubiquitous part of burn care worldwide despite reported accuracy rates of more than 95%, which is significantly higher than clinical assessment alone (50–75%). The aims of Part I of this survey study are: to identify the most important barriers for the use of LDI and to provide useful recommendations for efficient implementation in routine burn care. The actual interpretation and use of LDI measurements is discussed in the Enigma Part II article. 1. Informative interviews with 15 representatives of burn centers without LDI. 2. A survey among 51 burn centers with LDI by means of an extensive questionnaire. 3. In-depth interviews with 21 of the participating centers. 1. All 15 centers without LDI indicated that cost of purchase in combination with maintenance of the LDI device, as well as personnel costs were the reason for not buying, while 12 (80%) also rated the current scientific evidence as insufficient. 2. Twenty-seven burn centers with an LDI (53%) participated and filled in almost the entire questionnaire. In 5 centers, cost delayed the purchase of LDI. The hospital/department paid for the LDI device in 62% of the burn centers and in 88% also for maintenance and salaries. The LDI operators were mainly surgeons (47%) or nurses (42%). In more than half of the burn centers (52%), between 2 and 5 people were trained and certified to use an LDI. In 50% of burn centers, the interpretation of the LDI scan was done by the same person doing the actual measurements. Eighty-nine percent of the burn centers considered the accuracy of the LDI scan as mainly to almost completely accurate. In case of real discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and LDI, in 48% of the burn centers (13/27) the surgeon still relied more on the clinical diagnosis despite reporting this high or almost complete accuracy rate of the LDI. Barriers for the routine implementation of LDI were: 1. cost of purchasing and using an LDI combined with health care systems that inadequately reimburse non-surgical management; 2. lack of awareness of or ongoing skepticism towards the scientific evidence supporting LDI use; and 3. organizational constraints combined with logistical limitations. Our recommendations for wider use of LDI technology include: 1. a cost-effective reimbursement of LDI use combined with a more appropriate valuation of expert conservative management compared to surgical therapy; 2. increased use of LDI for every mixed depth burn and; 3. specialized LDI teams to improve burn procedural flexibility and to enable embedding LDI use in the burn care routine. Implementing these measures would promote the highest standards for LDI measurements and interpretation resulting in optimal care with mutual benefits for the hospital, for burn care teams and, most importantly, for the patients.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>33658147</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.burns.2021.01.014</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-5485</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5960-6248</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0305-4179
ispartof Burns, 2021-12, Vol.47 (8), p.1783-1792
issn 0305-4179
1879-1409
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2497113797
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Burn Units
Burns
Burns - diagnostic imaging
Burns - therapy
Cost-effectiveness
Humans
Laser Doppler imaging
Laser-Doppler Flowmetry - methods
Logistics
Skin
Survey
Surveys and Questionnaires
Unnecessary surgery
title The LDI Enigma, Part I: So much proof, so little use
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T13%3A17%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20LDI%20Enigma,%20Part%20I:%20So%20much%20proof,%20so%20little%20use&rft.jtitle=Burns&rft.au=Claes,%20Karel%20E.Y.&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1783&rft.epage=1792&rft.pages=1783-1792&rft.issn=0305-4179&rft.eissn=1879-1409&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.burns.2021.01.014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2497113797%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2497113797&rft_id=info:pmid/33658147&rft_els_id=S0305417921000218&rfr_iscdi=true