Reviewing the burn literature of 25 years ago, one is struck by the excitement caused by the reduction of mortality rates as a result of the scienti®c approach to the problems of burn pathophysiology. Today, however, perhaps no single aspect of burn therapy has seen as much change over the last 25 years as the advent of functional and psychological outcome measurements and, foremost among these, measurements of quality of life. There were some very early studies of psychological complications. Neuropsychiatric problems arising from the Coconut Grove disaster had been reported as early as 1943 by Adler [1] and by Cobb and Linderman [2]. During the early days of organization of institutions and individuals interested in the burn problem, which included the establishment of the International Society for Burn Injuries, the American Burn Association and the publication of the journal Burns, outcome managements were little in evidence. There is some consideration of the prevention of burns, but no discussion of outcomes in the 1964 Bahama Conference [3]. In the second edition of the classic `The Treatment of Burns' [4], there is an excellent chapter entitled `Nursing Care and Psychological Considerations' in which emotional factors and adaptive mechanisms are discussed and the sta exhorted to be considerate and attentive to the tremendous psychological needs of inpatients. There is, however, no patient follow-up nor any attempt at analysis of the factors that play a part in psychological complications. The 1968 New York Academy of Sciences meeting devoted to the early treatment of severe burns [5] was probably the ®rst comprehensive meeting devoted to the science of burn care, but there is no mention of outcomes. An early article on outcome problems was published in the psychiatric literature in 1953 [6]. The annual reports of the USA Institute of Surgical Research [7], has contained analysis of range of movement following physical therapy and in one year 231 patients were followed from initial admission until discharge with investigations of range of movement; but there are very little additional data. The ®rst consideration of return to work is contained in an article in the ®rst issue of The Surgical Clinics of North America to be devoted to burns [8]. Thus, at this early stage already, the importance of physical medicine rehabilitation to burn therapy was beginning to be emphasized. In the same issue of the Surgical Clinics the National Burn Information Exchange questionnaire [9] asks respondents to `list physical impairments resulting from the burn injury present at the time of discharge'; however there is no follow-up, so this was an early one-time assessment only. In this atmosphere of scienti®c endeavor it is highly praiseworthy that the ®rst issue of `Burns' did in fact contain an excellent paper on the psychological eect of burns by Mr. Douglas Jackson [10]. Mr. Jackson in this article references Cobb and Adler's work on the Coconut Grove ®re and extends these with observations of his own. Thus, even in the ®rst issue, this journal ful®lled its role as representing a holistic approach to burn therapy.
Read full abstract