[Polytrauma care in air rescue in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: impact and development of case numbers]. / Polytraumaversorgung in der Luftrettung in Zeiten der COVID-19-Pandemie: Auswirkungen und Entwicklung der Fallzahlen.

Background: Changes in patient care occurred as a result of the SARS-CoV­2 virus, and both intrahospital and prehospital care were profoundly affected. Public shutdowns during lockdown periods were intended to prevent overstretching existing resources, resulting in noticeable changes in medical care for both elective treatments and emergency medicine. This study now considered the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on air ambulance services at a central air ambulance site in 2020 compared to the previous 2 years. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of all missions of the rescue helicopter Christoph 9 in the first COVID-19 pandemic year 2020 in comparison to the years 2018 and 2019 was performed. The mission logs were evaluated for the analysis. Results: There was a 20% reduction in the number of missions in 2020, with primarily internal medicine missions affected. Despite the lockdown periods and reduction in social life, the proportion of trauma deployments remained nearly the same. As expected, the proportion of occupational accidents decreased, and recreational activities resulted in accidents more frequently. Injury or illness severity showed no significant differences. In terms of internal diseases, there was a reduction in alerts for acute coronary syndrome and respiratory emergencies. The proportion of suicide-related injuries remained constant over the years. Conclusion: During the COVID-19 study period, a decrease in the number of deployments and aborted deployments was observed. However, no significant differences in deployment and injury characteristics were observed for trauma-related deployments. These results highlight the importance of air ambulance services to ensure patient care even during pandemic periods.

Manual and Mechanical Induced Peri-Resuscitation Injuries-Post-Mortem and Clinical Findings.

(1) Background: Injuries related to resuscitation are not usually systematically recorded and documented. By evaluating this data, conclusions could be drawn about the quality of the resuscitation, with the aim of improving patient care and safety. (2) Methods: We are planning to conduct a multicentric, retrospective 3-phased study consisting of (1) a worldwide literature review (scoping review), (2) an analysis of anatomical pathological findings from local institutions in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany to assess the transferability of the review data to the German healthcare system, and (3) depending on the results, possibly establishing potential prospective indicators for resuscitation-related injuries as part of quality assurance measures. (3) Conclusions: From the comparison of literature and local data, the picture of resuscitation-related injuries will be focused on and quality indicators will be derived.

[Preliminary and Final Postmortem Examination and Death Certificate in the Emergency Medical Services in Germany: Heterogeneous Process Flows and Inadequate Standards]. / Vorläufige und endgültige Leichenschau und Todesbescheinigung im Rettungsdienst in Deutschland ­ uneinheitliche Prozessabläufe und mangelnde Standards.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent regulations and laws can lead to misunderstandings and incorrect procedures. In this study we would like to evaluate the heterogeneity of the different processes of postmortem examination and death certification in the German emergency medical services. METHODS: An e-mail with a survey link was sent to 212 medical directors of emergency services. The questions were answered online. RESULTS: The response rate was 47%. Regulated procedures were evident in 58% of the cases. Issue of provisional death certificate comprised 64%, postmortem examination 45%; 19.4% of emergency physicians were required to do the final post-mortem. In 41% of the cases, the application protocol was considered sufficient as a form of documentation. 45% of the participants evaluated the respective legal regulation as sufficient. Questions and concerns arose, especially when medical directors of EMS believed that the state-specific regulations were not sufficient (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results show that the obligatory post-mortem examination in Germany is heterogeneous in its processing procedures. More than half of the participants rate the existing legal regulations as inadequate. As a result, it is not uncommon for queries and complaints to arise, but above all for uncertainties to arise in everyday practice. Our results suggest that uniform legislation and clearly defined processes are desirable.

COVID-19: Vaccination Side Effects and Sick Leave in Frontline Healthcare-Workers-A Web-Based Survey in Germany.

(1) Background: The COVID-19 vaccination has caused uncertainty among employees and employers regarding vaccination reactions and incapacitation. At the time of our study, three vaccines are licensed in Germany to combat the COVID-19 pandemic (BioNTech/Pfizer (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria), and Moderna (Spikevax). We aim to assess how often and to what extent frontline healthcare workers had vaccination reactions after the first and second vaccination. The main focus is on the amount of sick leave after the vaccinations. (2) Methods: We create a web-based online questionnaire and deliver it to 270 medical directors in emergency medical services all over Germany. They are asked to make the questionnaire public to employees in their area of responsibility. To assess the association between independent variables and adverse effects of vaccination, we use log-binomial regression to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for dichotomous outcomes (sick leave). (3) Results: A total of 3909 individuals participate in the survey for the first vaccination, of whom 3657 (94%) also provide data on the second vaccination. Compared to the first vaccination, mRNA-related vaccine reactions are more intense after the second vaccination, while vaccination reactions are less intense for vector vaccines. (4) Conclusion: Most vaccination reactions are physiological (local or systemic). Our results can help to anticipate the extent to which personnel will be unable to work after vaccination. Even among vaccinated HCWs, there seems to be some skepticism about future vaccinations. Therefore, continuous education and training should be provided to all professionals, especially regarding vaccination boosters. Our results contribute to a better understanding and can therefore support the control of the pandemic.

A Local Survey of COVID-19: Vaccine Potential Acceptance Rate among Personnel in a Level 1 Trauma Center without Severe COVID-19 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in hospitals are at high risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers' infection risk could be amplified during the ongoing pandemic due to various factors, including continuous exposure to patients and inadequate infection control training. Despite the risk healthcare workers face, vaccine hesitancy remains a global challenge. Differences in acceptance rates have ranged from less than 55% (in Russia) to nearly 90% (in China). In order to improve our knowledge of vaccine acceptance and its variation in rates, an evaluation is warranted. A survey was thus administered to healthcare workers. METHODS: This survey aimed to address vaccination acceptance among employees in an urban level 1 trauma hospital. It was conducted through a developed and structured questionnaire that was randomly distributed online among the staff (age ≥18 years) to receive their feedback. RESULTS: Among 285 participants (out of 995 employees), 69% were female, and 83.5% were overaged more than 30 years of age. The two largest groups were nurses (32%) and doctors (22%). The majority of respondents reported that they would "like to be vaccinated" (77.4%) and that they trusted the COVID-19 vaccine (62%). Moreover, 67.8% also reported that they felt the vaccination was effective. They reported that vaccination was a method to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (85.15%) and was a way to protect individuals with weak immune systems (78.2%). More importantly, the participants were concerned about other people (80.1%) and believed the vaccine would protect others. On the other hand, the result showed that the majority of participants (95.3%) chose to be vaccinated once everyone else was vaccinated, "I don't need to get vaccinated". Results showed that the majority of participants that chose "I don't need to get vaccinated" did so after everyone else was vaccinated. Our results show that COVID-19 vaccination intention in a level 1 trauma hospital was associated with older age males who are more confident, and also share a collective responsibility, are less complacent, and have fewer constraints. CONCLUSION: Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine is relatively low among healthcare workers (HCWs). Differences in vaccine acceptance have been noted between different categories of HCWs and genders. Therefore, addressing barriers to vaccination acceptance among these HCWs is essential to avoid reluctance to receive the vaccination, but it will be challenging.

Impact of DST (Daylight Saving Time) on Major Trauma: A European Cohort Study.

(1) Background: Approximately 73 countries worldwide implemented a daylight saving time (DST) policy: setting their clocks forward in spring and back in fall. The main purpose of this practice is to save electricity. The aim of the present study was to find out how DST affects the incidence and impact of seriously injured patients. (2) Methods: In a retrospective, multi-center study, we used the data recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) between 2003 and 2017 from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. We compared the included cases 1 week before and after DST. (3) Results: After DST from standard time to summertime, we found an increased incidence of accidents of motorcyclists up to 51.58%. The result is consistent with other studies. (4) Conclusion: However, our results should be interpreted as a tendency. Other influencing factors, such as time of day and weather conditions, were not considered.

[COVID-19: acceptance and compliance of PPE (personal protective equipment) and rules for hygiene and reducing contacts in German emergency medical services-a nationwide survey]. / COVID-19: Akzeptanz und Compliance von persönlicher Schutzausrüstung (PSA) und AHA-L-Regeln (Abstands- und Hygieneregeln) im deutschen Rettungsdienst ­ eine bundesweite Umfrage.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also significantly burdened and challenged the German emergency medical services (EMS). In this regard, the personal protective equipment (PPE) and rules like wear a mask, stay 6 feet away from others, avoid crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, wash your hands often (called AHA­L rules in Germany) play an important role in reducing the spread of COVID-19 infections. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the acceptance and compliance of PPE and protective measures among rescue service personnel in Germany during pandemic periods. METHOD: More than 270 medical directors of EMS were contacted. They were asked to forward a web-based online survey to the rescue stations. Participants were asked about acceptance and compliance in everyday life, in the rescue station, during missions without COVID-19, during missions with COVID-19. RESULTS: There were n = 1295 participants. Overall acceptance and compliance of PPE and protective measures is high. The lowest acceptance and compliance is found in the questions acceptance (mean = 4.16; ±1.01) and compliance (mean = 4.26; ±0.89) in the rescue station. CONCLUSION: We recommend targeted training regarding PPE in pandemics and the provision of appropriate premises for conflict-free compliance with AHA­L rules.

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination among Front-Line Health Care Workers: A Nationwide Survey of Emergency Medical Services Personnel from Germany.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel as front-line health care workers (HCW) in Germany. Several studies have shown low willingness for vaccination (e.g., seasonal influenza) among HCWs and EMS personnel. METHODS: We created a web-based survey. The questions were closed and standardized. Demographic data were collected (age, sex, federal state, profession). Experience with own COVID-19 infection, or infection in personal environment (family, friends) as well as willingness to vaccinate was queried. RESULTS: The sample includes n = 1296 participants. A willingness to be vaccinated exists in 57%, 27.6% participants were undecided. Our results show a higher propensity to vaccinate among the following groups: male gender, higher medical education level, older age, own burden caused by the pandemic (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low overall acceptance of vaccination by HCWs, we recommend that the groups with vaccination hesitancy, in particular, be recruited for vaccination through interventions such as continuing education and awareness campaigns.

Two minutes CPR versus five cycles CPR prior to reanalysis of the cardiac rhythm: A prospective, randomized simulator-based trial.

AIM OF THE STUDY: While the 2005 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines recommended to provide CPR for five cycles before the next cardiac rhythm check, the current 2010 guideline now recommend to provide CPR for 2 min. Our aim was to compare adherence to both targets in a simulator-based randomized trial. METHODS: 119 teams, consisting of three to four physicians each, were randomized to receive a graphical display of the simplified circular adult BLS algorithm with the instruction to perform CPR for either 2 min or five cycles 30:2. Subsequently teams had to treat a simulated unwitnessed cardiac arrest. Data analysis was performed using video-recordings obtained during simulations. The primary endpoint was adherence, defined as being within ±20% of the instructed target (i.e. 96-144s in the 2 min teams and 4-6 cycles in the fivex30:2 teams). RESULTS: 22/62 (35%) of the "two minutes" teams and 48/57 (84%) of the "five×30:2″ teams provided CPR within a range of ± 20% of their instructed target (P<0.0001). The median time of CPR prior to rhythm check was 91s and 87s, respectively, (P=0.59) with a significant larger variance (P=0.023) in the "two minutes" group. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized simulator-based trial found better adherence and less variance to an instruction to continue CPR for five cycles before the next cardiac rhythm check compared to continuing CPR for 2 min. Avoiding temporal targets whenever possible in guidelines relating to stressful events appears advisable.