• Laura Shepherd, Victoria Tew, and Lovedeep Rai.
• Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Clinical Psychology & Neuropsychology, Queens Medical Centre Campus, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Laura.Shepherd@nuh.nhs.uk.
• Burns. 2017 Dec 1; 43 (8): 1802-1808.

AbstractVarious types of psychological screening are currently used in the UK to identify burn patients who are experiencing psychological distress and may need additional support and intervention during their hospital admission. This audit compared two types of psychological screening in 40 burn inpatients. One screening method was an unpublished questionnaire designed to explore multiple areas of potential distress for those who have experienced burns. The other method was an indirect psychological screen via discussions within multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings where a Clinical Psychologist was present to guide and prompt psychological discussions. Data was collected between November 2012 and September 2016. Results suggested that both screening methods were similar in identifying patients who benefit from more formal psychological assessment. Indeed, statistical analysis reported no difference between the two screening methods (N=40, p=.424, two-tailed). In conclusion, measuring distress in burns inpatients using a burns-specific questionnaire and psychological discussions within MDT meetings are similar in their ability to identify patients in need of more thorough psychological assessment. However, both screening methods identified patients who were in need of psychological input when the other did not. This suggests that psychological screening of burns inpatients, and the psychological difficulties that they can present with, is complex. The advantages and disadvantages of both methods of screening are discussed.Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

27 keywords...

hide…