Gender-sensitive considerations of prehospital teamwork in critical situations.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork in emergency medical services is a very important factor in efforts to improve patient safety. The potential differences of staff gender on communication, patient safety, and teamwork were omitted. The aim of this study is to evaluate these inadequately examined areas. METHODS: A descriptive and anonymous study was conducted with an online questionnaire targeting emergency physicians and paramedics. The participants were asked about teamwork, communication, patient safety and handling of errors. RESULTS: Seven hundred fourteen prehospital professionals from all over Germany participated. A total of 65.7% of the women harmed a patient (men 72.9%), and 52.6% were ashamed when mistakes were made (men 31.7%). 19.0% of the female participants considered their communication skills to be very good, compared to 81% of the men. More women than men did not want to appear incompetent (28.4%, 15.5%) and therefore did not speak openly about mistakes. Both genders saw the character of their colleagues as a reason for poor team communication (women 89.4%, men 84.9.%). Under high stress, communication decreased (women 35.9%, men 31.0%) and expression became inaccurate (women 18.7%, men 20.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Team communication problems and teamwork in rescue services are independent of gender. Women seem to have more difficulty with open communication about mistakes because they seem to be subject to higher expectations. Work organization should be adapted to women's needs to enable more effective error management. We conclude that it is necessary to promote a positive error and communication culture to increase patient safety.

[Preclinical patient transport at the end of life]. / Präklinischer Patiententransport am Lebensende.

BACKGROUND: Although most people would like to die at home, many die in hospitals. The study shows physicians' and paramedics' experiences with prehospital care of patients at the end of life. METHOD: Using an anonymous online questionnaire, primary care physicians and ambulance personnel in the Frankfurt am Main metropolitan area were surveyed about their experiences with end of life care. RESULTS: A total of 63 primary care physicians (PCP) and 62 emergency medical service staff (EMS) answered the questionnaire (female 31.2%, male 68.8%). Of the respondents 65.8% reported that patients are often still transported to hospital at the end of life. Of the participants 17.9% felt confident in their assessment of a patient at the end of life, 33.3% of PCP and 8.5% of EMS felt confident about subsequent treatment and 91.9% of PCP and 96.2% of EMS reported that they always/often ask about an advance healthcare directive. Of the participants 98.3% felt that EMS rarely/never ask about advance care planning, 78.7% of all participants would rarely/never ask about it and 90.4% of EMS would like to have a legally secure emergency document to guide their actions. CONCLUSION: Transporting patients at the end of life is part of everyday prehospital practice. There are uncertainties in the assessment and care of these patients. In the future, rescue service and medical training should include specific palliative care strategies. Advance healthcare directive and advance care planning must be more widely recognized by the medical community, so that in emergency situations the desired corridors of action in the best interests of the patient are quickly made known.

Endoscopic Removal of an Intramurally Ingrown Foreign Body in the Angular Fold of the Stomach.

Eine 67-jährige Patientin mit chronischer Gastritis stellte sich wegen zunehmenden epigastrischen Schmerzen in der Notaufnahme vor. Auf Grund einer nicht wegweisenden Initialdiagnostik wurde eine Computertomographie des Abdomens durchgeführt. In dieser stellte sich ein Fremdkörper am Magenausgang dar. Unter radiologischer Kontrolle erfolgte ein anspruchsvolles, zeitintensives endoskopisches Freipräparieren des Fremdkörpers. Nach postinterventionellem Abschwellen der Schleimhaut konnte in einer zweiten Sitzung ein Fischknochen geborgen werden. Die aufwendige endoskopische Intervention bewahrte die Patientin vor einer Operation.

Communication of preclinical emergency teams in critical situations: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: The emergency medical service as a high-risk workplace is a danger to patient safety. A main factor for patient safety, but also at the same time a main factor for patient harm, is team communication. Team communication is multidimensional and occurs before, during, and after the patient's treatment. METHODS: In an online based, anonymous and single-blinded study, medical and non-medical employees in the emergency medical services were asked about team communication, and communication errors. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fourteen medical and non-medical rescue workers from all over Germany took part. Among them, 72.0% had harmed at least one patient during their work. With imprecise communication, 81.7% rarely asked for clarification. Also, 66.3% saw leadership behavior as the cause of poor communication; 46.0% could not talk to their superiors about errors. Of note, 96.3% would like joint training of medical and non-medical employees in communication. CONCLUSION: Deficits in team communication occur frequently in the rescue service. There is a clear need for uniform training in team and communication skills in all professions.

Intricate decision making: ambivalences and barriers when fulfilling an advance directive.

BACKGROUND: Despite a recent statutory ruling stating the binding nature of advance directives (ADs), only a minority of the population has signed one. Yet, a majority deem it of utmost importance to ensure their wishes are followed through in case they are no longer able to decide. The reasons for this discrepancy have not yet been investigated sufficiently. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This article is based on a survey of patients using a well-established structured questionnaire. First, patients were asked about their attitudes with respect to six therapeutic options at the end of life: intravenous fluids, artificial feeding, antibiotics, analgesia, chemotherapy/dialysis, and artificial ventilation; and second, they were asked about the negative effects related to the idea of ADs surveying their apprehensions: coercion to fulfill an AD, dictatorial reading of what had been laid down, and abuse of ADs. RESULTS: A total of 1,260 interviewees completed the questionnaires. A significant percentage of interviewees were indecisive with respect to therapeutic options, ranging from 25% (analgesia) to 45% (artificial feeding). There was no connection to health status. Apprehensions about unwanted effects of ADs were widespread, at 51%, 35%, and 43% for coercion, dictatorial reading, and abuse, respectively. CONCLUSION: A significant percentage of interviewees were unable to anticipate decisions about treatment options at the end of life. Apprehensions about negative adverse effects of ADs are widespread.

Of mugs, meals and more: the intricate relations between physicians and the medical industry.

Empirical research has proven the influence exerted by the medical industry on physicians' decision-making. Physicians are the gatekeepers who determine how money is spent within the healthcare system. Hence, they are the target group of powerful lobbies in the field, i.e. the manufacturers of medical devices and the pharmaceutical industry. As clinical research lies in the hands of physicians, they play an exclusive and central role in launching new medical products. There are many ethical problems involved here: physicians may develop a mindset of entitlement; biased decisions may put patients at risk; academic interests and research activities will no longer be free if they are influenced considerably by financial incentives; fair resource allocation may be restricted. An aspect that has been neglected so far is the administrators' involvement as they not rarely expect physicians to acquire external financial resources from industry as benefits often lie with the institutions. To "protect" physicians from undue sway may be in the best interest of patients in order to guarantee a fair allocation of resources and to prevent the application of technologies (and medications) that would not have been used according to current standards of care. The latter may and obviously does put patients at risk. On the other hand, medico-industrial relations are of great importance. A considerable part of medical progress is driven by private industry. Yet, any co-operation between those who care for patients and industry ultimately has to serve the patient. Hence, strong policies to guide conduct are sorely needed. The following points are held to be pivotal in order to secure ethical conduct: (1) professional codes of ethics; (2) a stronger academic attitude amongst medical staff, (3) rules of transparency for medico-industrial relations including online disclosure and limiting scale of payments, (4) establishing rules (and laws) that ban unethical conduct and mandate vigorous surveillance of adherence to guidelines.

On markets and morals--(re-)establishing independent decision making in healthcare: a reply to Joao Calinas-Correia.

Medical practitioners owe much of the significant progress made in the diagnosis and treatment of disease to industrial research. Hence, co-operation between providers of medical services, most notably medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry is in the best interest of patients. Yet, empirical evidence shows how well-directed influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry impacts physicians' decision-making. Profit-motivated inducement by the pharmaceutical industry may expose patients to considerable risks. Against what many think to be based on overwhelming evidence, Joao Calinas-Correia takes the view that the criticism levelled at the pharmaceutical industry as well as the call for transparency in the relationships between physicians and the industry are exaggerated. In his polemic he praises "Big Pharma" as a success and espouses the view that the undesired consequences of its activities are allegedly inherent in the underlying market environment shaped by politics. Moreover, he believes that the proposals made to control and eliminate such undesired effects will lead to mediocrity. Astonishingly, his polemic reaches out to contest the appropriateness of setting rules at all-even if being set by a democratic process. Calinas-Correia's assertions are based on the wrong premises. They fail to recognize that today individual civil rights and liberties often enough do not have to be defended against encroachments by governmental authorities. Rather, it is incumbent on the state to create rules designed to defend the individual against infringements by overly powerful non-governmental institutions, in our case the medical-industrial complex. Given the power exercised by physicians and the special nature of their role in public health, clear-cut rules have to be enacted and implemented with respect to their relationship to Big Pharma.

On markets and morals-(re-)establishing independent decision making in healthcare.

Medical practitioners owe much of the significant progress made in the diagnosis and treatment of disease to industrial research. Hence, co-operation between providers of medical services, most notably medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry is in the best interest of patients. Yet, empirical evidence shows how well-directed influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry impacts physicians' decision-making. Profit-motivated inducement by the pharmaceutical industry may expose patients to considerable risks. Against what many think to be based on overwhelming evidence, Joao Calinas-Correia takes the view that the criticism levelled at the pharmaceutical industry as well as the call for transparency in the relationships between physicians and the industry are exaggerated. In his polemic he praises "Big Pharma" as a success and espouses the view that the undesired consequences of its activities are allegedly inherent in the underlying market environment shaped by politics. Moreover, he believes that the proposals made to control and eliminate such undesired effects will lead to mediocrity. Astonishingly, his polemic reaches out to contest the appropriateness of setting rules at all-even if being set by a democratic process. Calinas-Correia's assertions are based on the wrong premises. They fail to recognize that today individual civil rights and liberties often enough do not have to be defended against encroachments by governmental authorities. Rather, it is incumbent on the state to create rules designed to defend the individual against infringements by overly powerful non-governmental institutions, in our case the medical-industrial complex. Given the power exercised by physicians and the special nature of their role in public health, clear-cut rules have to be enacted and implemented with respect to their relationship to Big Pharma.

Doctor-cared dying instead of physician-assisted suicide: a perspective from Germany.

The current article deals with the ethics and practice of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and dying. The debate about PAS must take the important legal and ethical context of medical acts at the end of life into consideration, and cannot be examined independently from physicians' duties with respect to care for the terminally ill and dying. The discussion in Germany about active euthanasia, limiting medical intervention at the end of life, patient autonomy, advanced directives, and PAS is not fundamentally different in content and arguments from discussions led in other European countries and the United States. This must be emphasized, since it is occasionally claimed that in Germany a thorough discussion could not be held with the same openness as in other countries due to Germany's recent history. Still, it is worthwhile to portray the debate, which has been held intensively both among experts and the German public, from the German perspective. In general, it can be stated that in Germany debates about questions of medical ethics and bioethics are taking place with relatively large participation of an interested public, as shown, for instance, by the intense recent discussions about the legalisation of advanced directives on June 18 2009, the generation and use of embryonic stem cells in research or the highly difficult challenges for the prioritizing and rationing of scarce resources within the German health care system. Hence, the current article provides some insights into central medical and legal documents and the controversial public debate on the regulation of end-of-life medical care. In conclusion, euthanasia and PAS as practices of direct medical killing or medically assisted killing of vulnerable persons as "due care" is to be strictly rejected. Instead, we propose a more holistically-oriented palliative concept of a compassionate and virtuous doctor-cared dying that is embedded in an ethics of care.