Trauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 in German ICUs during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose In January and February 2021, about 4000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients were treated daily in German intensive care units (ICUs). The number of SARS-CoV-2-positive ICU patients with trauma, however, is not known and neither whether the trauma itself or COVID-19 causes the critical illness. Methods A total of 173 German ICUs, representing 3068 ICU beds, participated in a survey developed by the Trauma Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI). Results Participating ICUs reported an overall 1-day prevalence of 20 and an overall 7-day prevalence of 35 SARS-CoV-2-positive trauma patients in the ICU. Critical illness was triggered by trauma alone in 50% of cases and by the combination of trauma and COVID-19 in 49% of cases; 70% of patients were older than 65 years and suffered from a single injury, predominantly proximal femur fractures. The distribution of patients was comparable regarding the level of care of the trauma centre (local, regional, and supra-regional). Conclusion The proportion of trauma patients of all SARS-CoV-2-positive critically ill patients is small (~ 1%) but relevant. There is no concentration of these patients at Level 1 trauma centres. However, the traumatic insult is the most relevant cause for ICU treatment in most of these patients. Regarding a new wave of the pandemic, adequate trauma dedicated resources and perioperative structures and expertise have to be provided for COVID-19 trauma patients.

Clinically Relevant Interactions with Anti-Infectives on Intensive Care Units—A Multicenter Delphi Study

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of drug–drug interactions (DDIs) due to polypharmacy. Little is known about type and frequency of DDIs within German ICUs. Clinical pharmacists’ interventions (PI) recorded in a national database (ADKA-DokuPIK) were filtered for ICU patients. Binary DDIs involving ≥1 anti-infective agent with >1 database entry were selected. A modified two-step Delphi process with a group of senior hospital pharmacists was employed to evaluate selected DDIs for clinical relevance by using a five-point scale and to develop guidance for clinical practice. In total, 16,173 PI were recorded, including 1836 (11%) DDIs in the ICU setting. Of the latter, 41% (756/1836) included ≥1 anti-infective agent, 32% (590/1836) were binary DDIs, and 25% (455/1836) were listed at least twice. This translates into 88 different DDIs, 74% (65/88) of which were rated as being clinically relevant by our expert panel. The majority of DDIs (76% [67/88]) included macrolides, antifungals, or fluoroquinolones. This percentage was even higher in DDIs being rated as clinically relevant by the experts (85% [55/65]). It is noted that an inter-professional discussion and approach is needed in the individual patient management of DDIs. The guidance developed might be a tool for decision support.

A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Online Survey on the Treatment of COVID-19-ARDS: High Variance in Standard of Care in German ICUs

Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and—in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed—better communication to care providers. Methods: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. Results: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. Conclusions: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care.

Structure and concept of ICU rounds: the VIS-ITS survey

Objective To gather data about structural and procedural characteristics of patient rounds in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Design A structured online survey was offered to members of two German intensive care medicine societies. Measurements and main results Intensivists representing 390 German ICUs participated in this study (university hospitals 25%, tertiary hospitals 23%, secondary hospitals 36%, primary hospitals 16%). In 90% of participating ICUs, rounds were reported to take place in the morning and cover an average of 12 intensive care beds and 6 intermediate care beds within 60 min. With an estimated bed occupancy of 80%, this averaged to 4.3 min spent per patient during rounds. In 96% of ICUs, rounds were stated to include a bedside visit. On weekdays, 86% of the respondents reported holding a second ICU round with the attendance of a qualified decision-maker (e.g. board-certified intensivist). On weekends, 79% of the ICUs performed at least one round with a decision-maker per day. In 18%, only one ICU round per weekend was reported, mostly on Sundays. The highest-qualified decision-maker present during rounds on most ICUs was an ICU attending (57%). Residents (96%) and intensive care nurses (87%) were stated to be always or usually present during rounds. In contrast, physiotherapists, respiratory therapists or medical specialists such as pharmacists or microbiologist were not regular members of the rounding team on most ICUs. In the majority of cases, the participants reported examining the medical chart directly before or during the bedside visit (84%). An electronic patient data management system (PDMS) was available on 31% of ICUs. Daily goals were always (55%) or usually (39%) set during rounds. Conclusion This survey gives a broad overview of the structure and processes of ICU rounds in different sized hospitals in Germany. Compared to other mostly Anglo-American studies, German ICU rounds appear to be shorter and less interdisciplinary.

Staff Shortage in German Intensive Care Units During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Not only a Sensed Dilemma: Results from a Nationwide Survey

Background: The surge in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the looming problem of staff shortage in German ICUs possibly leading to worse outcomes for patients. Methods: Within the German Evidence Ecosystem CEOsys network, we conducted an online national mixed-methods survey assessing the standard of care in German ICUs treating patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 171 German ICUs reported a median ideal number of patients per intensivist of 8 (interquartile range, IQR = 3rd quartile - 1st quartile = 4.0) and per nurse of 2.0 (IQR = 1.0). For COVID-19 patients, the median target was a maximum of 6.0 (IQR = 2.0) patients per intensivist or 2.0 (IQR = 0.0) patients per nurse. Targets for intensivists were rarely met by 15.2% and never met by 3.5% of responding institutions. Targets for nursing staffing could rarely be met in 32.2% and never in 5.3% of responding institutions.Conclusions: Shortages of staffing in the critical care setting are eminent during the COVID-19 pandemic and might not only negatively affect patient outcomes, but also staff wellbeing and healthcare costs. A joint effort that scrutinizes the demands and structures of our health care system seems fundamental to be prepared for the future.