Dataset Information

COVID-19 Intensive Care-Evaluation of Public Information Sources and Current Standards of Care in German Intensive Care Units: A Cross Sectional Online Survey on Intensive Care Staff in Germany.

ABSTRACT: Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.

SUBMITTER: Werner A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9319015 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about importance and implementation of end-of-life care (EOLC) in German intensive care units (ICU). This survey analyses preferences and differences in training between "medical" (internal medicine, neurology) and "surgical" (surgery, anaesthesiology) residents during intensive care rotation.MethodsThis is a point-prevalence study, in which intensive care medicine course participants of one educational course were surveyed. Physicians from multiple ICU and university as well as non-university hospitals and all care levels were asked to participate. The questionnaire was composed of a paper and an electronic part. Demographic and structural data were prompted and EOLC data (48 questions) were grouped into six categories considering importance and implementation: category 1 (important, always implemented), 2 (important, sometimes implemented), 3 (important, never implemented) and 4-6 (unimportant, implementation always, sometimes, never). The trial is registered at the "Deutsches Register für klinische Studien (DRKS)", Study number DRKS00026619, registered on September 10th 2021, www.drks.de .ResultsOverall, 194/ 220 (88%) participants responded. Mean age was 29.7 years, 55% were female and 60% had scant ICU working experience. There were 64% medical and 35% surgical residents. Level of care and size of ICU differed significantly between medical and surgical (both p < 0.001). Sufficient implementation was stated for 66% of EOLC questions, room for improvement (category 2 and 3) was seen in 25, and 8% were classified as irrelevant (category 6). Areas with the most potential for improvement included prognosis and outcome and patient autonomy. There were no significant differences between medical and surgical residents.ConclusionsEven though EOLC is predominantly regarded as sufficiently implemented in German ICU of all specialties, our survey unveiled still 25% room for improvement for medical as well as surgical ICU residents. This is important, as areas of improvement potential may be addressed with reasonable effort, like individualizing EOLC procedures or setting up EOLC teams. Health care providers as well as medical societies should emphasize EOLC training in their curricula.

Project description:BackgroundIn the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed.MethodsIn order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.ResultsA total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients.ConclusionThe heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 Intensive Care-Evaluation of Public Information Sources and Current Standards of Care in German Intensive Care Units: A Cross Sectional Online Survey on Intensive Care Staff in Germany.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets