Psychosocial working conditions, perceived patient safety and their association in emergency medical services workers in Germany - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical service (EMS) workers face challenging working conditions that are characterized by high stress and a susceptibility to making errors. The objectives of the present study were (a) to characterize the psychosocial working conditions of EMS workers, (b) to describe the perceived quality of patient care they provide and patient safety, and (c) to investigate for the first time among EMS workers associations of psychosocial working conditions with the quality of patient care and patient safety. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we carried out an online survey among 393 EMS workers who were members of a professional organization. Working conditions were measured by the Demand-Control-SupportQuestionnaire (DCSQ) and seven self-devised items covering key stressors. Participants reported how often they perceived work stress to affect the patient care they provided and we inquired to what extent they are concerned to have made a major medical error in the last three months. Additionally, we used parts of the Emergency Medical Services - Safety Inventory (EMS-SI) to assess various specific errors and adverse events. We ran descriptive analyses (objective a and b) and multivariable logistic regression (objective c). RESULTS: The most common stressors identified were communication problems (reported by 76.3%), legal insecurity (69.5%), and switching of colleagues (48.9%) or workplaces (44.5%). Overall, 74.0% reported at least one negative safety outcome based on the EMS-SI. Concerns to have made an important error and the perception that patient care is impaired by work stress and were also frequent (17.8% and 12.7%, respectively). Most psychosocial working conditions were associated with the perception that patient care is impaired due to work stress. CONCLUSIONS: Work stress in EMS staff is pronounced and negative safety outcomes or potential errors are perceived to occur frequently. Poor psychosocial working conditions were only consistently associated with perceived impairment of patient care due to work stress. It seems necessary to reduce communication problems and to optimize working processes especially at interfaces between emergency services and other institutions. Legal insecurity could be reduced by clarifying and defining responsibilities. Communication and familiarity between team colleagues could be fostered by more consistent composition of squads.

Attitudes and stressors related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among emergency medical services workers in Germany: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to investigate attitudes and stressors related to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among emergency medical services (EMS) workers in Germany. We further aimed to detect possible changes within a 5-week period and potential determinants of attitudes and stressors. METHODS: We conducted two cross-sectional studies using an online questionnaire in early April 2020 (i.e., the first peak of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Germany) and five weeks later. The study instrument comprised sociodemographic items, self-devised items on pandemic-related attitudes, stressors and work outcomes, and established instruments assessing depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety. Logistic regression was performed to identify possible determinants. RESULTS: Data of 1537 participants was included in the analysis (April: n = 1124, May: n = 413, 83.1% male, median age 32). Most participants agreed that their personal risk of infection was higher compared to the general population (April: 87.0% agreement, May: 78.9%). The greatest stressor was uncertainty about the pandemic's temporal scope (82.0 and 80.9%, respectively). Most participants (69.9, 79.7%) felt sufficiently prepared for the pandemic and only few felt burdened by their financial situation (18.8, 13.3%). Agreement to all stressors decreased from April to May except related to the childcare situation. Regression analysis identified subgroups to be burdened more frequently such as older employees, those with SARS-CoV-2 cases among their colleagues, and those with lower paramedic training levels. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key SARS-CoV-2-related stressors whose levels generally decreased within a 5-week period. Our results indicate that EMS workers are less affected by existential fears and rather worry about their personal infection risk.

State of implementation of the Corona-Virus-Disease-2019 resuscitation guidelines : An online-based survey one year after publication in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the implementation of the European Resuscitation Council Corona-Virus-Disease 2019 (COVID-19) resuscitation guidelines in Germany 1 year after publication. AIM OF THE WORK: To evaluate the practical implementation of the COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines in Germany one year after their publication. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In an online survey between April and May 2021 participants were asked about awareness of COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines, corresponding training, the resuscitation algorithm used and COVID-19 infections of emergency medicine personnel associated with COVID-19 resuscitation. RESULTS: A total of 961 (8%) of the 11,000 members took part in the survey and 85% (818/961) of questionnaires were fully completed. While 577 (70%) of the respondents were aware of the COVID-19 guidelines, only 103 (13%) had received respective training. A specific COVID-19 resuscitation algorithm was used by 265 respondents (32%). Adaptations included personal protective equipment (99%), reduction of staff caring for the patient, or routine use of video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation (each 37%), securing the airway before rhythm analysis (32%), and pausing chest compressions during endotracheal intubation (30%). Respondents without a specific COVID-19 resuscitation algorithm were more likely to use mouth-nose protection (47% vs. 31%; p < 0.001), extraglottic airway devices (66% vs. 55%; p = 0.004) and have more than 4 team members close to the patient (45% vs. 38%; p = 0.04). Use of an Filtering-Face-Piece(FFP)-2 or FFP3 mask (89% vs. 77%; p < 0.001; 58% vs. 70%; p ≤ 0.001) or performing primary endotracheal intubation (17% vs. 31%; p < 0.001) were found less frequently and 9% reported that a team member was infected with COVID-19 during resuscitation. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines are still insufficiently implemented 1 year after publication. Future publication strategies must ensure that respective guideline adaptations are implemented in a timely manner.