Patient experience of scar assessment and the use of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation: a qualitative study

Abstract

Background: Scar assessment plays a key role during burns aftercare, to monitor scar remodelling and patients’ psychosocial well-being. To aid assessment, subjective scar assessment scales are available that use health-care professionals’ and patients’ opinions to score scar characteristics. The subjective scales are more widely used in clinical practice over objective scar measures. To date, there is no research that considers patients’ views on scar assessment and the role of subjective and objective assessment tools. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ perspectives on scar assessment and the utility of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 adult burn patients who were being reviewed in clinic for scarring. Participants were recruited via their clinical care team and research nurses at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Topics covered during interview included patient experience of scar assessment, the use of scar assessment tools and discussion surrounding important factors to be addressed when assessing scars. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted. Results: Participants identified key subthemes that contribute towards the overarching theme of patient-centred scar assessment. These are: patient-led care; continuity in care; learning how to self-manage scarring; and psychological assessment. Links were demonstrated between these subthemes and the remaining themes that describe scar assessment strategies, indicating their potential patient-centred contributions. The subjective opinions of clinicians were found to be valued above the use of subjective or objective scar assessment tools. Scar assessment scales were perceived to be a beneficial method for self-reflection in relation to psychosocial functioning. However, minimal feedback and review of completed assessment scales led to uncertainty regarding their purpose. Patients perceived objective tools to be of primary use for health-care professionals, though the measures may aid patients’ understanding of scar properties. Conclusions: Scar assessment tools should be used to support, rather than replace, health-care professionals’ subjective judgements of scarring. Adapting the way in which clinicians introduce and use scar assessment tools, according to patient needs, can support a patient-centred approach to scar assessment.

Keywords

Burns / Scarring / Scar assessment / Scar assessment scales / Qualitative research / Interviews / Objective scar assessment

References

[1] Klein MB, Lezotte DC, Heltshe S, Fauerbach J, Holavanahalli RK, Rivara FP, et al. Functional and psychosocial outcomes of older adults after burn injury: results from a multicenter database of severe burn injury. J Burn Care Res. 2011; 32: 66-78.

[2] Friedstat JS, Hultman CS. Hypertrophic burn scar management: what does the evidence show? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Plast Surg. 2014; 72: 198-201.

[3] Finnerty CC, Jeschke MG, Branski LK, Barret JP, Dziewulski P, Herndon DN. Hypertrophic scarring: the greatest unmet challenge after burn injury. Lancet. 2016; 388: 1427-36.

[4] Oosterwijk A, Mouton L, Schouten H, Disseldorp LM, van der Schans CP, Nieuwenhuis MK. Prevalence of scar contractures after burn: a systematic review. Burns. 2016; 43: 41-9.

[5] Esselman PC. Burn rehabilitation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88: S3-6.

[6] Martin L, Byrnes M, McGarry S, Rea S, Wood F. Social challenges of visible scarring after severe burn: a qualitative analysis. Burns. 2017; 43: 76-83.

[7] Patterson DR, Everett JJ, Bombardier CH, Questad KA, Lee VK, Marvin JA. Psychological effects of severe burn injuries. Psychol Bull. 1993; 113: 362-78.

[8] Van Loey NE, Van Son MJ. Psychopathology and psychological problems in patients with burn scars: epidemiology and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003; 4: 245-72.

[9] Simons M, Price N, Kimble R, Tyack Z. Patient experiences of burn scars in adults and children and development of a health-related quality of life conceptual model: a qualitative study. Burns. 2016; 42: 620-32.

[10] Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D. Levinson H. a review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010; 10: e43.

[11] Tyack Z, Kimble R, McPhail S, Plaza A, Simons M.Psychometric properties of the Brisbane burn scar impact profile in adults with burn scars. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12:e0184452 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184452.

[12] Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009; 62: 713-20.

[13] Tyack Z, Simons M, Spinks A, Wasiak J. A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns. 2012; 38: 6-18.

[14] Tyack Z, Ziviani J, Kimble R, Plaza A, Jones A, Cuttle L, et al. Measuring the impact of burn scarring on health-related quality of life: development and preliminary content validation of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP) for children and adults. Burns. 2015; 41: 1405-19.

[15] Simons M, Kimble R, McPhail S, Tyack Z. The longitudinal validity, reproducibility and responsiveness of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children version) for measuring health-related quality of life in children with burn scars. Burns. 2019; 45: 1792-809.

[16] Lee KC, Bamford A, Gardiner F, Agovino A, ter Horst B, Bishop J. Investigating the intra-and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools. Burns. 2019; 45: 1311-24.

[17] Lee KC, Bamford A, Gardiner F, Agovino A, ter Horst B, Bishop J. Burns objective scar scale (BOSS): validation of an objective measurement devices based burn scar scale panel. Burns. 2020; 46: 110-20.

[18] Lee KC, Dretzke J, Grover L, Logan A, Moiemen N. Systematic review of objective burn scar measurements. Burns Trauma. 2016; 4: 14.

[19] van der Wal MBA, Verhaegen PDHM, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen. A Clinimetric overview of scar assessment scales. J Burn Care Res. 2012; 33: e79-87.

[20] Tyack Z, Wasiak J, Spinks A, Kimble R, Simons M. A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use. Burns. 2013; 39: 1341-50.

[21] Brusselaers N, Pirayesh A, Hoeksema H, Verbelen J, Blot S, Monstreys. Burn scar assessment: a systematic review of different scar scales. J Surg Res. 2010; 164: e115-23.

[22] Jones LL, Calvert M, Moiemen N, Deeks JJ, Bishop J, Kinghorn P, et al. Outcomes important to burns patients during scar management and how they compare to the concepts captured in burn-specific patient reported outcome measures. Burns. 2017; 43: 1682-92.

[23] Klinge K, Chamberlain DJ, Redden M, King L. Psychological adjustments made by postburn injury patients: an integrative literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2009; 65: 2274-92.

[24] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 349-57.

[25] Doody ONM. Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data. Nurse Res. 2012; 20: 28-32.

[26] Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2013.

[27] Phillippi J, Lauderdale J. A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res. 2017; 28: 381-8.

[28] Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 117.

[29] Khandkar SH. Open coding.. 2009. Available at: http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/open-coding.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2020.

[30] Ritchie L, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers.. London, UK: Sage, 2003.

[31] Kornhaber R, Wilson A, Abu-Qamar MZ, McLean L. Adult burn survivors’ personal experiences of rehabilitation: an integrative review. Burns. 2014; 40: 17-29.

[32] Health Quality O.Continuity of care to optimize chronic disease management in the community setting: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013; 13: 1-41.

[33] Cabana MD, Jee SH. Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes? J Fam Pract. 2004; 53: 974-80.

[34] Dahl O, Wickman M, Wengström Y.Adapting to life after burn injury-reflections on care. J Burn Care Res. 2012; 33: 595-605.

[35] Litchfield I, Jones LL, Moiemen N, Andrews N, Greenfield S, Mathers J. The role of self-management in burns aftercare: a qualitative research study. Burns. 2019; 45: 825-34.

[36] Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 48: 1507-15.