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  - Holzmann-Littig, Christopher
A1  - Stadler, David
A1  - Popp, Maria
A1  - Kranke, Peter
A1  - Fichtner, Falk
A1  - Schmaderer, Christoph
A1  - Renders, Lutz
A1  - Braunisch, Matthias Christoph
A1  - Assali, Tarek
A1  - Platen, Louise
A1  - Wijnen-Meijer, Marjo
A1  - Lühnen, Julia
A1  - Steckelberg, Anke
A1  - Pfadenhauer, Lisa
A1  - Haller, Bernhard
A1  - Fuetterer, Cornelia
A1  - Seeber, Christian
A1  - Schaaf, Christian
T1  - Locating medical information during an infodemic: information seeking behavior and strategies of health-care workers in Germany
JF  - Healthcare
N2  - Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.
KW  - COVID-19
KW  - infodemic
KW  - health-care workers
KW  - HCW
KW  - information strategies
KW  - emergency information
Y1  - 2023
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-319306
SN  - 2227-9032
VL  - 11
IS  - 11
ER  -