550 Real World Treatment Trends for Patients TBSA ≤ 20%: Evaluating Important Shifts in Care and Budget Impact of ASCS Adoption

Introduction Treatment pathways in burn care are typically determined based on burn center (BC) and patient characteristics, although decisions may be influenced by anecdotal experience, personal preference, and hospital policies/purchasing decisions. Health economic (HE) evaluations can support improved decision-making, identifying the most cost-effective interventions for tailored care. A novel burn care model (BEACON) was developed with burn surgeons over several years and validated through numerous publications, including an assessment of the HE impacts of autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) use for definitive burn closure. To ensure that BEACON accurately represents the current state of care, it is vital to update data that underpins model projections. This study collected real world data on practice patterns and patient outcomes for the most commonly seen burns (TBSA ≤ 20%) to update the current understanding of standard of care (SOC) costs and outcomes and to refine estimates on the impact of ASCS use in TBSA ≤ 20% patients. Methods Data was collected from a 10% sample of BCs, including: BC and patient characteristics, resource use, inpatient costs, and length of stay (LOS). NBR based inputs in BEACON were updated to reflect survey data for patients with TBSA ≤ 20%, with the ability to view data as a national aggregate sample and across BC characteristics. BEACON estimates patient and BC costs and outcomes across a spectrum of patient profiles (age, gender, inhalation injury, comorbidity status, burn depth, TBSA) and combines information on each patient profile to understand annual budget impact. Key outcomes were compared across the survey sample and published NBR trends. Using the updated BEACON, the BC budget impact of ASCS in burns TBSA ≤ 20% was assessed. Results The survey was collected from 16+ BCs, focusing on inpatient encounters in 2018. LOS was lower than NBR estimates, with some centers reporting LOS per %TBSA far below 1 d/%TBSA. Using the detailed bottom-up estimation of cost from BEACON with survey data, trends suggest total hospital costs for SOC are lower than published NBR charges given shorter LOS and updated cost and resource use assumption. Conclusions Compared to NBR 8.0, contemporary data suggests that fewer small TBSA burns are being treated in the inpatient setting; those treated have a LOS below NBR estimates. When using real world data, the impact of ASCS use in burns TBSA ≤ 20% was still calculated to be cost saving to a BC overall, given reductions in LOS and number of definitive closure procedures. Incorporating ASCS into appropriate TBSA ≤ 20% procedures can still result in a positive financial impact for BCs. Applicability of Research to Practice