Background: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented global challenge and implicates a wide range of burden on medical professionals. Here, we evaluated the perception of the COVID-19 pandemic among medical professionals in Germany. Methods: A total of n = 2827 medical professionals participated in an online survey between 27 March and 11 April. Results: While most participants stated that Germany was well prepared and rated the measures taken by their employer as positive, subgroup analyses revealed decisive differences. The preventive measures were rated significantly worse by nurses compared to doctors (p < 0.001) and by participants from ambulatory healthcare centres compared to participants from maximum-care hospitals (p < 0.001). Importantly, shortage of protective medical equipment was reported more commonly in the ambulatory sector (p < 0.001) and in East German federal states (p = 0.004). Moreover, the majority of health care professionals (72.4%) reported significant restrictions of daily work routine. Finally, over 60% of medical professionals had concerns regarding their own health, which were more pronounced among female participants (p = 0.024). Conclusion: This survey may indicate starting points on how medical professionals could be supported in carrying out their important activities during the ongoing and future healthcare challenges.

BackgroundModernised medical curricula in Germany (so called “reformed study programs”) rely increasingly on alternative self-instructed learning forms such as e-learning and curriculum-guided self-study. However, there is a lack of evidence that these methods can outperform conventional teaching methods such as lectures and seminars.This study was conducted in order to compare extant traditional teaching methods with new instruction forms in terms of learning effect and student satisfaction.MethodsIn a randomised trial, 244 students of medicine in their third academic year were assigned to one of four study branches representing self-instructed learning forms (e-learning and curriculum-based self-study) and instructed learning forms (lectures and seminars). All groups participated in their respective learning module with standardised materials and instructions. Learning effect was measured with pre-test and post-test multiple-choice questionnaires. Student satisfaction and learning style were examined via self-assessment.ResultsOf 244 initial participants, 223 completed the respective module and were included in the study. In the pre-test, the groups showed relatively homogenous scores. All students showed notable improvements compared with the pre-test results. Participants in the non-self-instructed learning groups reached scores of 14.71 (seminar) and 14.37 (lecture), while the groups of self-instructed learners reached higher scores with 17.23 (e-learning) and 15.81 (self-study). All groups improved significantly (p < .001) in the post-test regarding their self-assessment, led by the e-learning group, whose self-assessment improved by 2.36.ConclusionsThe study shows that students in modern study curricula learn better through modern self-instructed methods than through conventional methods. These methods should be used more, as they also show good levels of student acceptance and higher scores in personal self-assessment of knowledge.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0679-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In an effort to contain the effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, health care systems worldwide implemented telemedical solutions to overcome staffing, technical, and infrastructural limitations. In Germany, a multitude of telemedical systems are already being used, while new approaches are rapidly being developed in response to the crisis. However, the extent of the current implementation within different health care settings, the user’s acceptance and perception, as well as the hindering technical and regulatory obstacles remain unclear. Objective The aim of this paper is to assess the current status quo of the availability and routine use of telemedical solutions, user acceptance, and the subjectively perceived burdens on telemedical approaches. Furthermore, we seek to assess the perception of public information quality among professional groups and their preferred communication channels. Methods A national online survey was conducted on 14 consecutive days in March and April 2020, and distributed to doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in the German language. Results A total of 2827 medical professionals participated in the study. Doctors accounted for 65.6% (n=1855) of the professionals, 29.5% (n=833) were nursing staff, and 4.9% (n=139) were identified as others such as therapeutic staff. A majority of participants rated the significance of telemedicine within the crisis as high (1065/2730, 39%) or neutral (n=720, 26.4%); however, there were significant differences between doctors and nurses (P=.01) as well as between the stationary sector compared to the ambulatory sector (P<.001). Telemedicine was already in routine use for 19.6% (532/2711) of German health care providers and in partial use for 40.2% (n=1090). Participants working in private practices (239/594, 40.2%) or private clinics (23/59, 39.0%) experienced less regulatory or technical obstacles compared to university hospitals (586/1190, 49.2%). A majority of doctors rated the public information quality on COVID-19 as good (942/1855, 50.8%) or very good (213/1855, 11.5%); nurses rated the quality of public information significantly lower (P<.001). Participant’s age negatively correlated with the perception of telemedicine’s significance (ρ=–0.23; P<.001). Conclusions Telemedicine has a broad acceptance among German medical professionals. However, to establish telemedical structures within routine care, technical and regulatory burdens must be overcome.

The aim of this work was to develop and evaluate the reinforcement learning algorithm VentAI, which is able to suggest a dynamically optimized mechanical ventilation regime for critically-ill patients. We built, validated and tested its performance on 11,943 events of volume-controlled mechanical ventilation derived from 61,532 distinct ICU admissions and tested it on an independent, secondary dataset (200,859 ICU stays; 25,086 mechanical ventilation events). A patient “data fingerprint” of 44 features was extracted as multidimensional time series in 4-hour time steps. We used a Markov decision process, including a reward system and a Q-learning approach, to find the optimized settings for positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) and ideal body weight-adjusted tidal volume (Vt). The observed outcome was in-hospital or 90-day mortality. VentAI reached a significantly increased estimated performance return of 83.3 (primary dataset) and 84.1 (secondary dataset) compared to physicians’ standard clinical care (51.1). The number of recommended action changes per mechanically ventilated patient constantly exceeded those of the clinicians. VentAI chose 202.9% more frequently ventilation regimes with lower Vt (5–7.5 mL/kg), but 50.8% less for regimes with higher Vt (7.5–10 mL/kg). VentAI recommended 29.3% more frequently PEEP levels of 5–7 cm H2O and 53.6% more frequently PEEP levels of 7–9 cmH2O. VentAI avoided high (>55%) FiO2 values (59.8% decrease), while preferring the range of 50–55% (140.3% increase). In conclusion, VentAI provides reproducible high performance by dynamically choosing an optimized, individualized ventilation strategy and thus might be of benefit for critically ill patients.

Background In order to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Germany has implemented drastic restrictions on public or social life, while health institutions are invoked to postpone elective procedures. Although urologists are less involved in the direct treatment of COVID-19 patients, the current situation strongly affects the urological work routine. Objective To analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various aspects of work and personal life among urologists in Germany. Design, setting, and participants A total of 589 urologists in Germany participated in an online survey between March 27 and April 11, 2020. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Participants were stratified into subgroups according to professional characteristics. Results and limitations Most urologists rated Germany as “well prepared” and the increasing restrictions of social life as “very positive.” Routine operation was more restricted in hospitals than in the outpatient sector ( p = 0.046). Moreover, urologists from the outpatient sector felt significantly less prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic ( p = 0.001), reported a higher shortage of protective medical equipment ( p < 0.001), and described a tendency toward a higher level of threat ( p = 0.054). Although restrictions regarding telemedicine approaches were reported by 60% of participants, the outpatient sector used telehealth more frequently than hospitals (25.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001). Limitations include the national design and the restricted survey period. Conclusions This survey systematically evaluates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal and professional aspects of German urologists. We identified several issues, such as a higher shortage of medical protective equipment in the outpatient sector that could trigger specific measures to further improve the quality of urological care in Germany. Patient summary We evaluated a potential impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on professional and personal aspects of the urologists in Germany. Our results suggest that the outpatient sector should receive specific attention as, for example, shortage of protective equipment was more common.

Background Cardiovascular surgery patients with a prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay may benefit most from early nutrition support. Using established scoring systems for nutrition assessment and operative risk stratification, we aimed to develop a model to predict a prolonged ICU stay ≥5 days in order to identify patients who will benefit from early nutrition interventions. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational study of patients undergoing elective valvular, coronary artery bypass grafting, or combined cardiac surgery. The nutrition risk was assessed by well‐established screening tools. Patients’ preoperative EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation), primary disease, and intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were included as independent variables in a multivariate logistic regression analysis to predict a prolonged ICU stay (>4 days). Results The number of cardiac surgery patients included was 1193. Multivariate analysis revealed that for prediction of ICU stay >4 days, both Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (area under the curve (AUC): 0.716, P = .020) and Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) score (AUC: 0.715, P = .037) were significant, whereas for prediction of ICU stay >5 days, only the MNA score showed significant results (AUC: 0.762, P = .011). Conclusion Present data provide first evidence about the combined use of EuroSCORE, primary disease, CPB time, and nutrition risk screening tools for prediction of prolonged ICU stay in cardiac surgery patients. If prospectively evaluated in adequately designed studies, this model may help to identify patients with prolonged ICU stay to initiate early postoperative nutrition therapy and thus, facilitate an enhanced recovery.

Background Evidence-based infectious disease and intensive care management is more relevant than ever. Medical expertise in the two disciplines is often geographically limited to university institutions. In addition, the interconnection between inpatient and outpatient care is often insufficient (eg, no shared electronic health record and no digital transfer of patient findings). Objective This study aims to establish and evaluate a telemedical inpatient-outpatient network based on expert teleconsultations to increase treatment quality in intensive care medicine and infectious diseases. Methods We performed a multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (February 2017 to January 2020) to establish a telemedicine inpatient-outpatient network among university hospitals, hospitals, and outpatient physicians in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Patients aged ≥18 years in the intensive care unit or consulting with a physician in the outpatient setting were eligible. We provided expert knowledge from intensivists and infectious disease specialists through advanced training courses and expert teleconsultations with 24/7/365 availability on demand respectively once per week to enhance treatment quality. The primary outcome was adherence to the 10 Choosing Wisely recommendations for infectious disease management. Guideline adherence was analyzed using binary logistic regression models. Results Overall, 159,424 patients (10,585 inpatients and 148,839 outpatients) from 17 hospitals and 103 outpatient physicians were included. There was a significant increase in guideline adherence in the management of Staphylococcus aureus infections (odds ratio [OR] 4.00, 95% CI 1.83-9.20; P<.001) and in sepsis management in critically ill patients (OR 6.82, 95% CI 1.27-56.61; P=.04). There was a statistically nonsignificant decrease in sepsis-related mortality from 29% (19/66) in the control group to 23.8% (50/210) in the intervention group. Furthermore, the extension of treatment with prophylactic antibiotics after surgery was significantly less likely (OR 9.37, 95% CI 1.52-111.47; P=.04). Patients treated by outpatient physicians, who were regularly participating in expert teleconsultations, were also more likely to be treated according to guideline recommendations regarding antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16-1.56; P<.001) and asymptomatic bacteriuria (OR 9.31, 95% CI 3.79-25.94; P<.001). For the other recommendations, we found no significant effects, or we had too few observations to generate models. The key limitations of our study include selection effects due to the applied on-site triage of patients as well as the limited possibilities to control for secular effects. Conclusions Telemedicine facilitates a direct round-the-clock interaction over broad distances between intensivists or infectious disease experts and physicians who care for patients in hospitals without ready access to these experts. Expert teleconsultations increase guideline adherence and treatment quality in infectious disease and intensive care management, creating added value for critically ill patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03137589; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03137589

No abstract