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
Zitieren Sie bitte immer diese URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865
- 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: WeBackround: 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.…
Autor(en): | Anne Werner, Maria Popp, Falk Fichtner, Christopher Holzmann-Littig, Peter Kranke, Anke Steckelberg, Julia Lühnen, Lisa Marie Redlich, Steffen Dickel, Clemens Grimm, Onnen Moerer, Monika Nothacker, Christian Seeber |
---|---|
URN: | urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865 |
Dokumentart: | Artikel / Aufsatz in einer Zeitschrift |
Institute der Universität: | Medizinische Fakultät / Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) |
Sprache der Veröffentlichung: | Englisch |
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes / der Zeitschrift (Englisch): | Healthcare |
ISSN: | 2227-9032 |
Erscheinungsjahr: | 2022 |
Band / Jahrgang: | 10 |
Heft / Ausgabe: | 7 |
Aufsatznummer: | 1315 |
Originalveröffentlichung / Quelle: | Healthcare (2022) 10:7, 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071315 |
DOI: | https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071315 |
Allgemeine fachliche Zuordnung (DDC-Klassifikation): | 6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
Freie Schlagwort(e): | COVID-19; Germany; ICU staff; guideline adherence; guideline usage; implementation; intensive care |
Datum der Freischaltung: | 17.05.2023 |
Datum der Erstveröffentlichung: | 15.07.2022 |
Lizenz (Deutsch): | CC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International |