Cited by 73Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationBurn Injury Management and OutcomesHealthcare Systems and Technology

Telemedicine Use Among Burn Centers in the United States: A Survey

Holt, Brennen, Faraklas, Iris, Theurer, Lou, Cochran, Amalia, Saffle, Jeffrey R.·2012·Journal of Burn Care & Research

Abstract

Telemedicine has been increasingly used in a host of settings for over 20 years. Burns are well suited for evaluation by either synchronous ("interactive") video or asynchronous digital ("store and forward") imagery, but little information is available about telemedicine use in burn care. The authors surveyed U.S. burn center directors to assess their current use of, and interest in, telemedicine in clinical burn treatment. With Institutional Review Board approval, a web-based survey (surveymonkey.com) was created and sent to directors of 126 burn centers in the United States. Questions measured the use of telemedicine by burn centers and burn directors' attitudes toward telemedicine. Surveys were returned from 50 centers (40%). Directors of 42 units (84%) reported using telemedicine; 37 use it routinely. Interactive video communication was used by 18 centers, store and forward by 38 centers, and remote access to patient data by home computer or personal digital assistant in 41 centers. Uses included remote evaluation of acute burns for consultation, for help in determining the need for transfer, or for remote clinic follow-up. Users identified some problems with current telemedicine usage, including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act/compliance, licensure, and billing/collection issues. Importantly, 40 respondents (80%) indicated that they would like programming on telemedicine to be available at American Burn Association's annual meetings. Use of telemedicine is fairly widespread among U.S. burn centers, with volume and type of usage varying widely. Significant interest in learning more about telemedicine suggests strongly that telemedicine should be included in the annual program at the American Burn Association.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/bcr.0b013e31823d0b68

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holt, B., Faraklas, I., Theurer, L., Cochran, A., & Saffle, J. R.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Saffle, Jeffrey R.
Venue
Journal of Burn Care & Research
Published
2012
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
157-162
ISSN
1559-047X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036188731
Cited by
73
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Burn Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
telemedicine, burn unit, burn treatment, store-and-forward telemedicine, telehealth adoption, physician licensing, patient transfer, remote follow-up, American Burn Association
MeSH terms
Burn Units, Burns, Humans, Quality of Health Care, United States, Telemedicine, Health Care Surveys

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review