TY  - JOUR
A1  - Werner, Anne
A1  - Popp, Maria
A1  - Fichtner, Falk
A1  - Holzmann-Littig, Christopher
A1  - Kranke, Peter
A1  - Steckelberg, Anke
A1  - Lühnen, Julia
A1  - Redlich, Lisa Marie
A1  - Dickel, Steffen
A1  - Grimm, Clemens
A1  - Moerer, Onnen
A1  - Nothacker, Monika
A1  - Seeber, Christian
T1  - 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
JF  - Healthcare
N2  - 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.
KW  - COVID-19
KW  - implementation
KW  - guideline usage
KW  - guideline adherence
KW  - intensive care
KW  - Germany
KW  - ICU staff
Y1  - 2022
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865
SN  - 2227-9032
VL  - 10
IS  - 7
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Herrmann, Johannes
A1  - Adam, Elisabeth Hannah
A1  - Notz, Quirin
A1  - Helmer, Philipp
A1  - Sonntagbauer, Michael
A1  - Ungemach-Papenberg, Peter
A1  - Sanns, Andreas
A1  - Zausig, York
A1  - Steinfeldt, Thorsten
A1  - Torje, Iuliu
A1  - Schmid, Benedikt
A1  - Schlesinger, Tobias
A1  - Rolfes, Caroline
A1  - Reyher, Christian
A1  - Kredel, Markus
A1  - Stumpner, Jan
A1  - Brack, Alexander
A1  - Wurmb, Thomas
A1  - Gill-Schuster, Daniel
A1  - Kranke, Peter
A1  - Weismann, Dirk
A1  - Klinker, Hartwig
A1  - Heuschmann, Peter
A1  - Rücker, Viktoria
A1  - Frantz, Stefan
A1  - Ertl, Georg
A1  - Muellenbach, Ralf Michael
A1  - Mutlak, Haitham
A1  - Meybohm, Patrick
A1  - Zacharowski, Kai
A1  - Lotz, Christopher
T1  - COVID-19 Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome — A Multicenter Observational Study
JF  - Frontiers in Medicine
N2  - Background: Proportions of patients dying from the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vary between different countries. We report the characteristics; clinical course and outcome of patients requiring intensive care due to COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Methods: This is a retrospective, observational multicentre study in five German secondary or tertiary care hospitals. All patients consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in any of the participating hospitals between March 12 and May 4, 2020 with a COVID-19 induced ARDS were included.
Results: A total of 106 ICU patients were treated for COVID-19 induced ARDS, whereas severe ARDS was present in the majority of cases. Survival of ICU treatment was 65.0%. Median duration of ICU treatment was 11 days; median duration of mechanical ventilation was 9 days. The majority of ICU treated patients (75.5%) did not receive any antiviral or anti-inflammatory therapies. Venovenous (vv) ECMO was utilized in 16.3%. ICU triage with population-level decision making was not necessary at any time. Univariate analysis associated older age, diabetes mellitus or a higher SOFA score on admission with non-survival during ICU stay.
Conclusions: A high level of care adhering to standard ARDS treatments lead to a good outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
KW  - COVID-19
KW  - ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome)
KW  - intensive care medicine
KW  - pandemia
KW  - Germany
Y1  - 2020
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-219834
SN  - 2296-858X
VL  - 7
ER  -