Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (7)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (7)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (7) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- 3D modeling (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- CXorf44 (1)
- DFNB68 (1)
- DNA damage repair (1)
- DNA helicase (1)
- DNA replication (1)
- FAM104A (1)
- FAM104B (1)
- FLJ14775 (1)
Institut
- Lehrstuhl für Biochemie (3)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (3)
- Institut für Humangenetik (1)
- Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (1)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (1)
- Julius-von-Sachs-Institut für Biowissenschaften (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (1)
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.