Acute burns of the hands – physiotherapy perspective.

Background: Acute burns of the hands are complex and may impact on various aspects of a person’s life. Physiotherapy rehabilitation and restoration of hand function is critical for the patient’s independence and re-integration into society. Purpose: This study aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of physiotherapists in the management of patients with their hand burn injuries. Method: Five focus groups consisting of physiotherapists and physiotherapy assistants working with burn injured patients from each of the five selected public hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal were recruited. An explorative qualitative approach was adopted. Results: Physiotherapists emphasised that the acute management of the hand was trivialised due to a primary focus on the survival of the burn sufferer. Therapists identified several factors that determined the patients’ level of participation and motivation in therapy one of which was the procedural pain experienced. The role of the therapists’ within the rehabilitation framework was found to be critical to their recovery however there appeared to be a breakdown in the collaboration and communication among health care professionals to the detriment of effective intervention. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary team approach is the foundation in the management of acute burn injuries and during the trajectory of the trauma care continuum.

Knowledge and use of asthma control measurement tools in the management of asthma: a survey of doctors working in family and internal medicine practice in Nigeria.

Objective: To investigate the knowledge and use of asthma control measurement (ACM) tools in the management of asthma among doctors working in family and internal medicine practice in Nigeria. Method: A questionnaire based on the global initiative on asthma (GINA) guideline was self-administered by 194 doctors. It contains 12 test items on knowledge of ACM tools and its application. The knowledge score was obtained by adding the correct answers and classified as good if the score ≥ 9, satisfactory if score was 6-8 and poor if < 6. Results: The overall doctors knowledge score of ACM tools was 4.49±2.14 (maximum of 12). Pulmonologists recorded the highest knowledge score of 10.75±1.85. The majority (69.6%) had poor knowledge score of ACM tools. Fifty (25.8%) assessed their patients’ level of asthma control and 34(17.5%) at every visit. Thirty-nine (20.1%) used ACM tools in their consultation, 29 (15.0%) of them used GINA defined control while 10 (5.2 %) used asthma control test (ACT). The use of the tools was associated with pulmonologists, having attended CME within six months and graduated within five years prior to the survey. Conclusion: The results highlight the poor knowledge and use of ACM tools and the need to address the knowledge gap.