[Cross-sectional study of COVID-19 patients on working conditions and quality of care]. / Querschnittsstudie zu Arbeitsbedingungen und Versorgungsqualität in der Versorgung von COVID-19-Patienten.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic challenges hospital clinicians by additional burdens. Key questions are whether hospital clinicians have experienced more stress in the care of COVID-19 patients and whether patient safety and quality of care have changed. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using an online survey with clinicians in German hospitals on working conditions and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing clinicians with (MmK) vs. without direct contact (MoK) to COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: In total, 2122 clinicians participated. Most clinicians were physicians (15.4%, n = 301) or nurses (77.0%, n = 1505) working in major acute care hospitals (46.0%, n = 899). Every second respondent stated that they worked more than usual (46.4%, n = 907) and took on additional activities (47.7%, n = 932). A quarter of the participants did not receive any training or get instructions in devices (21.5%, n = 421). Only 51.5% (n = 1006) of the respondents were provided with sufficient personal protective equipment. More than 30% (32.7%, n = 639) were more satisfied than usual. The comparing clinicans with vs. without direkt contact to Covid-19 patients worked more shifts than usual (> 2 shifts: 24.1%, n = 306 vs. 13.7%, n = 63, p < 0.001) and without instruction (27.9%, n = 364 vs. 17.1%), n = 57, p < 0.001). In terms of patient safety, there were more deficiencies in the care, mechanical ventilation and nursing (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The cross-sectional study indicates an increased burden on clinicians and a restricted quality of care for patients with COVID-19. A risk to patients or clinicians cannot be excluded.

[Quality Assurance in Intensive Care Medicine: Peer Reviews and Quality Indicators]. / Qualitätssicherung in der Intensivmedizin: Peer Reviews und Qualitätsindikatoren.

Goal-oriented quality management in health care is an essential tool to provide good medical practice and treatment. It aims at a patient-centred case management with high transparency of structural and clinical process aspects, as well as patient outcome. An objective and comprehensive description of clinical care includes the use of quality indicators. However, the appliance of those indicators falls short, when the evaluation of quality is not followed by recommendations for improvement.As a highly specified area in health care provided in hospitals, intensive care medicine is characterized by complex interprofessional and multidisciplinary approaches. In addition, critical care units are an expensive resource. In order to provide an economic and yet high quality patient care, treatments should be evidence-based, and cost-drivers must be analysed for their effectiveness on patient-outcome.Various methods of quality assurance allow for a formative evaluation of intensive care units by peer reviews, including the use of quality indicators. This article focuses on peer review systems currently applied in German hospitals, and particularly describes quality indicators that have been established by DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine). It also addresses the need for a professional dialogue between equal partners. This has to accompany each peer review that aims at an improvement in quality of critical patient care.

[Anaesthesia-related Infection Prevention during Operations]. / Anästhesiebezogene Hygiene und Infektionsprävention bei Operationen.

The processes of anaesthesia during operations enable surgical disciplines to perform a wide range of procedures. However, anaesthesia procedure may also represent a potential risk of infection for the surgical patient. Important hygiene measures concern the following topics: hand hygiene, surface disinfection, administration of parenteral drugs, dealing with catheters, intubation, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, temperature management, change intervals, OR workflow organization. The selection of hygiene measures for anaesthesia staff in the operating theatre listed in this article is presented in the sequence of the work flow, whereby certain topics such as hand hygiene naturally play an important role in all work phases.

[Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorders - Postoperative Prevention Strategies]. / Wie können postoperativ ein Delir und eine neurokognitive Störung verhindert werden?

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication after surgery. It is associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as neurocognitive disorder and associated loss of autonomy and increased need for care. As professionals, it is our duty to treat our patients in a holistic individual concept with the aim to reintegrate our patients into their home and social environment afterwards. In addition to preoperative and intraoperative interventions, postoperative prevention is of particular importance. This article focuses on non-pharmacological prevention strategies to avoid postoperative delirium and neurocognitive disorder in postoperative inpatient care. It is based on the "Evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium". Thus, risk factors are addressed and non-pharmacological strategies are presented, which include reorientation, mobilization and nutritional support. Interprofessional cooperation plays just as important a role as the implementation of the listed preventive measures. Finally, the modified Hospital Elder Life Program is presented, which presents and applies preventive measures as a system-oriented and interdisciplinary concept, which "prevents functional decline and allows older adults to return home at the maximal level of independence". From our point of view, the training of a professional delirium team is a future-oriented complementary measure in the treatment concept of Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorders (PND), which finds its justification as an interface in the treatment of high-risk patients.

Survey among critical care nurses and physicians about delirium management.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a serious complication in patients in intensive care units. Previous surveys on delirium management in daily practice showed low adherence to published guidelines. AIM: To evaluate delirium management in nurses and physicians working in intensive care units in German-speaking countries and to identify related differences between nurses and physicians. DESIGN: The study used an open online survey with multiple-choice responses. METHODS: An invitation for participation was spread via journals and electronic resources using a snowball system. Apart from recording socio-demographical characteristics, the survey collected data on delirium assessment, delirium-related processes, non-pharmacological prevention and treatment and barriers for implementation. Differences between nurses and physicians were tested by Fisher's exact test with sequential Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: The survey was conducted in autumn 2016, and 559 clinicians participated. More nurses than physicians reported screening for delirium. The majority of clinicians reported screening for delirium when this was suspected; more than 50% used validated instruments. Half of the clinicians had delirium-related structures implemented, such as two thirds reporting delirium-related processes. Most cited barriers were lack of time and missing knowledge about delirium and its assessment. With significant difference, physicians recommended more than nurses early removal of catheters and daily interprofessional goals for patients. CONCLUSION: In German-speaking countries, assessment of delirium needs further improvement, leading to accurate assessment. Delirium-related structures and processes appear to be implemented widely, with only a few differences between nurses and physicians. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses and physicians in this survey reported similar perceptions and attitudes towards management of delirium. Both professions need more knowledge and inter-professional training on when and how to use validated assessment instruments.

Early mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients: a 1-day point-prevalence study in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence to support early mobilization of adult mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs. However, there is little knowledge regarding early mobilization in routine ICU practice. Hence, the interdisciplinary German ICU Network for Early Mobilization undertook a 1-day point-prevalence survey across Germany. DESIGN: One-day point-prevalence study. SETTING: One hundred sixteen ICUs in Germany in 2011. PATIENTS: All adult mechanically ventilated patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For a 24-hour period, data were abstracted on hospital and ICU characteristics, the level of patient mobilization and associated barriers, and complications occurring during mobilization. One hundred sixteen participating ICUs provided data for 783 patients. Overall, 185 patients (24%) were mobilized out of bed (i.e., sitting on the edge of the bed or higher level of mobilization). Among patients with an endotracheal tube, tracheostomy, and noninvasive ventilation, 8%, 39%, and 53% were mobilized out of bed, respectively (p < 0.001 for difference between three groups). The most common perceived barriers to mobilizing patients out of bed were cardiovascular instability (17%) and deep sedation (15%). Mobilization out of bed versus remaining in bed was not associated with a higher frequency of complications, with no falls or extubations occurring in those mobilized out of bed. CONCLUSIONS: In this 1-day point-prevalence study conducted across Germany, only 24% of all mechanically ventilated patients and only 8% of patients with an endotracheal tube were mobilized out of bed as part of routine care. Addressing modifiable barriers for mobilization, such as deep sedation, will be important to increase mobilization in German ICUs.

The current state of intensive care unit discharge practices - Results of an international survey study.

Background: Increasing pressure on limited intensive care capacities often requires a subjective assessment of a patient's discharge readiness in the absence of established Admission, Discharge, and Transfer (ADT) guidelines. To avoid suboptimal care transitions, it is important to define clear guidelines for the admission and discharge of intensive care patients and to optimize transfer processes between the intensive care unit (ICU) and lower care levels. To achieve these goals, structured insights into usual ICU discharge and transfer practices are essential. This study aimed to generate these insights by focusing on involved stakeholders, established processes, discharge criteria and tools, relevant performance metrics, and current barriers to a timely and safe discharge. Method: In 2022, a structured, web-based, anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted, aimed at practicing ICU physicians, nurses, and bed coordinators. The survey consisted of 29 questions (open, closed, multiple choice, and scales) that were divided into thematic blocks. The study was supported by several national and international societies for intensive care medicine and nursing. Results: A total of 219 participants from 40 countries (105 from Germany) participated in the survey. An overload of acute care resources with ~90% capacity utilization in the ICU and the general ward (GW) leads to not only premature but also delayed patient transfers due to a lack of available ward and intermediate care (IMC) beds. After multidisciplinary rounds within the intensive care team, the ICU clinician on duty usually makes the final transfer decision, while one-third of the panel coordinates discharge decisions across departmental boundaries. By the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, half of the hospitals had implemented ADT policies. Among these hospitals, nearly one-third of the hospitals had specific transfer criteria established, consisting primarily of vital signs and laboratory data, patient status and autonomy, and organization-specific criteria. Liaison nurses were less common but were ranked right after the required IMC capacities to bridge the care gap between the ICU and normal wards. In this study, 80% of the participants suggested that transfer planning would be easier if there was good transparency regarding the capacity utilization of lower care levels, a standardized transfer process, and improved interdisciplinary communication. Conclusion: To improve care transitions, transfer processes should be managed proactively across departments, and efforts should be made to identify and address care gaps.

[Suctioning in intubated and tracheotomized patients : A narrative review]. / Absaugung bei intubierten und tracheotomierten Patient*innen : Eine narrative Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suctioning in intubated or tracheotomized critically ill patients is a daily task of various professional groups in intensive and emergency medicine; however, a German language summary of current evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop a narrative overview of current evidence on endotracheal suctioning of intubated or tracheotomized patients in the clinical setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the databases Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Livivo, and Medline via PubMed by nurses with an academic degree. In addition, a hand search and applying the snowball principle were performed. Following a successful critical appraisal, all English and German language publications addressing endotracheal suctioning in the context of hospital care were included. RESULTS: A total of 23 full texts were included. After developing 6 main topics on endotracheal suction 19 articles were considered in the reporting. The results showed, among others, that routine deep suctioning once per shift is contraindicated and that the catheter should be advanced no more than 0.5-1 cm beyond the distal end of the tube or tracheal cannula. Closed suction catheters offer advantages, especially for staff protection, although studies are heterogeneous. Further training of staff is obligatory. CONCLUSION: Few conclusive studies on endotracheal suction could be found; however, with the available evidence initial conclusions can be drawn which should be considered in, for example, internal standard operating procedures. Further research is needed.

Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel.

A scientific panel was created consisting of 23 interdisciplinary and interprofessional experts in intensive care medicine, physiotherapy, nursing care, surgery, rehabilitative medicine, and pneumology delegated from scientific societies together with a patient representative and a delegate from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies who advised methodological implementation. The guideline was created according to the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), based on The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. The topics of (early) mobilisation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, assist devices for mobilisation, and positioning, including prone positioning, were identified as areas to be addressed and assigned to specialist expert groups, taking conflicts of interest into account. The panel formulated PICO questions (addressing the population, intervention, comparison or control group as well as the resulting outcomes), conducted a systematic literature review with abstract screening and full-text analysis and created summary tables. This was followed by grading the evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and a risk of bias assessment. The recommendations were finalized according to GRADE and voted using an online Delphi process followed by a final hybrid consensus conference. The German long version of the guideline was approved by the professional associations. For this English version an update of the systematic review was conducted until April 2024 and recommendation adapted based on new evidence in systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. In total, 46 recommendations were developed and research gaps addressed.

[Recommendations for the specialist further training of nursing personnel on intensive care units in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a modified Delphi procedure with experts]. / Empfehlungen zur Fachweiterbildung von Pflegefachpersonen der Intensivstation bei der Behandlung des Bauchaortenaneurysmas: Ergebnisse eines modifizierten Delphi-Verfahrens mit Expert:innen.

INTRODUCTION: The medical development in the previous 15 years and the changes in treatment reality of the comprehensive elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms necessitate a re-evaluation of the quality assurance guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee in Germany (QBAA-RL). In the current version this requires a specialist further training quota for nursing personnel in intensive care wards of 50%. The quota was determined in 2008 based on expert opinions, although a direct empirical evidence base for this does not exist. METHODS: Representatives from the fields of patient representation, physicians, nursing personnel and other relevant interface areas were invited to participate in a modified Delphi procedure. Following a comprehensive narrative literature search, a survey and focus group discussions with national and international experts, a total of three anonymized online-based voting rounds were carried out for which previously determined key statements were assessed with a 4­point Likert scale (totally disagree up to totally agree). In addition, the expert panel had also defined a recommendation for a minimum quota for the specialist training of nursing personnel on intensive care wards in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, whereby an a priori agreement of 80% of the participants was defined as the consensus limit. RESULTS: Overall, 37 experts participated in the discussions and three successive voting rounds (participation rate 89%). The panel confirmed the necessity of a re-evaluation of the guideline recommendations and recommended the introduction of a shift-related minimum quota of 30% of the full-time equivalent of nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the introduction of structured promotional programs for long-term elevation of the quota. CONCLUSION: In this national Delphi procedure with medical and nursing experts as well as representatives of patients, the fundamental benefits and needs of professional specialist qualifications in the field of intensive care medicine were confirmed. The corresponding minimum quota for specialist further training of intensive care nursing personnel should generally apply without limitations to specific groups. The expert panel stipulates a shift-related minimum quota for intensive care nursing personnel with specialist training of 30% of the nursing personnel on intensive care wards and the obligatory introduction of structured and transparent promotion programs for the long-term enhancement.

[Children visiting intensive care units and emergency departments : Kids are welcome!] / Besuche von minderjährigen Angehörigen in der Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin : Kinder als Besucher willkommen!

In this white paper, key recommendations for visitation by children in intensive care units (ICU; both pediatric and adult), intermediate care units and emergency departments (ED) are presented. In ICUs and EDs in German-speaking countries, the visiting policies for children and adolescents are regulated very heterogeneously: sometimes they are allowed to visit patients without restrictions in age and time duration, sometimes this is only possible from the age of teenager on, and only for a short duration. A request from children to visit often triggers different, sometimes restrictive reactions among the staff. Management is encouraged to reflect on this attitude together with their employees and to develop a culture of family-centered care. Despite limited evidence, there are more advantages for than against a visit, also in hygienic, psychosocial, ethical, religious, and cultural aspects. No general recommendation can be made for or against visits. The decisions for a visit are complex and require careful consideration.

Quality indicators in intensive care medicine for Germany - fourth edition 2022.

The measurement of quality indicators supports quality improvement initiatives. The German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) has published quality indicators for intensive care medicine for the fourth time now. After a scheduled evaluation after three years, changes in several indicators were made. Other indicators were not changed or only minimally. The focus remained strongly on relevant treatment processes like management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, and infections in the ICU. Another focus was communication inside the ICU. The number of 10 indicators remained the same. The development method was more structured and transparency was increased by adding new features like evidence levels or author contribution and potential conflicts of interest. These quality indicators should be used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. Other forms of measurement and evaluation are also reasonable, for example in quality management. This fourth edition of the quality indicators will be updated in the future to reflect the recently published recommendations on the structure of intensive care units by the DIVI.

Family witnessed resuscitation - experience and attitudes of German intensive care nurses.

AIM: To explore German intensive care nurses' experiences and attitudes toward family witnessed resuscitation (FWR). BACKGROUND: The subject of FWR has fuelled much controversy among health professionals. Typically studies involving European critical and cardiac nurses' under-represent the perspective of individual countries. Arguably research exploring the experiences and attitudes of nurses by country may expand understanding and embrace cultural values. DESIGN: Descriptive survey. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-four German intensive care nurses attending a conference were invited to complete a 36-item questionnaire on their experiences and attitudes towards FWR. Participants were also invited to share, in writing, other thoughts relevant to the study. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 166 (42.1%) questionnaires were returned completed. Seventy participants had experiences with family members being present and for 46 (65.7%) these were negative. Participants (68%) did not agree that family members should have the option to be with loved ones during resuscitation. Over half (56.0%) were concerned that family presence may adversely influence staff performance during resuscitation procedures. There was a lack of certainty about the outcomes of the practice, although 61% agreed that family presence could facilitate better understanding among relatives. Qualitative responses where characterized by four broad themes relating to individualized decision-making, supporting families, threats of violence and family involvement. CONCLUSIONS: German intensive care nurses have guarded attitudes towards FWR because of their experiences and concerns for the well-being of relatives and staff. Introducing this topic within nursing curricula, as part of resuscitation training and by wider professional debate will help challenge and resolve practitioner concerns and objections. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Health professionals have anxieties about possible consequences of FWR, strategies involving education and simulation training may improve attitudes.

German Network for Early Mobilization: Impact for participants.

Professional networks support health care providers in implementing evidence based knowledge. The German Network for Early Mobilization in Intensive Care Units (ICU) was founded in 2011 and serves for more than 300 critical care team members today. The mobilization network is connected to other professional networks and contributed to the development of national guidelines and quality indicators. Several research projects were conducted. Members of the mobilization network perceived benefits for themselves and their workplace. The network increased participants' knowledge and contributed to quality improvement projects on ICUs. Without having significant resources, this network development may serve as an example for other networks.

Caloric consumption during early mobilisation of mechanically ventilated patients in Intensive Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a) the magnitude of the increase in caloric consumption due to early mobilisation of patients with mechanical ventilation (MV) in Intensive Care Units (ICU) as part of routine care, b) whether there are differences in caloric consumption due to active or passive mobilisation, and c) whether early mobilisation in routine care would lead to additional nutritional requirements. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, multi-centre study. SETTING: Medical, surgical and neurological ICUs from three centres. PATIENTS: Patients on MV in ICU who were mobilised out of bed as part of routine care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Caloric consumption was assessed in 66 patients by indirect calorimetry at six time points: (1) lying in bed 5-10 min prior to mobilisation, (2) sitting on the edge of the bed, (3) standing beside the bed, (4) sitting in a chair, (5) lying in bed 5-10 min after mobilisation, and (6) 2 h after mobilisation. Differences in caloric consumption in every mobilisation level vs. the baseline of lying in bed were measured for 5 min and found to have increased significantly by: +0.4 (Standard Deviation (SD) 0.59) kcal while sitting on the edge of the bed, +1.5 (SD 1.26) kcal while standing in front of the bed, +0.7 (SD 0.63) kcal while sitting in a chair (all p < 0.001). Active vs. passive transfers showed a higher, but non-significant consumption. A typical sequence of mobilisation including sitting on edge of the bed, standing beside the bed, sitting in a chair (20 min) and transfer back into bed, would require an additional 4.56 kcal compared to caloric consumption without mobilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this data, routine mobilisation of MV patients in ICU increases caloric consumption, especially in active mobilisation. Nevertheless, an additional caloric intake because of routine mobilisation does not seem to be necessary.

Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

BACKGROUND: Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios. METHODS: Ten fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses. RESULTS: In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the "S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders" correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team.