Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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.
Werner, Anne; Popp, Maria; Fichtner, Falk; Holzmann-Littig, Christopher; Kranke, Peter; Steckelberg, Anke; Lühnen, Julia; Redlich, Lisa Marie; Dickel, Steffen; Grimm, Clemens; Moerer, Onnen; Nothacker, Monika; Seeber, Christian.
Affiliation
  • Werner A; Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
  • Popp M; Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany.
  • Fichtner F; Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany.
  • Holzmann-Littig C; Clinic and Polyclinic for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
  • Kranke P; TUM Medical Education Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
  • Steckelberg A; Department of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
  • Lühnen J; Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany.
  • Redlich LM; Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany.
  • Dickel S; Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany.
  • Grimm C; Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany.
  • Moerer O; Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany.
  • Nothacker M; Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany.
  • Seeber C; Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 10(7)2022 Jul 15.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35885841
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.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Guideline / Prevalence_studies / Qualitative_research Language: En Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Germany

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Guideline / Prevalence_studies / Qualitative_research Language: En Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Germany