Search

Background: To our knowledge, the treatment, outcome, clinical presentation, risk stratification of patients with venous thromboembolism and COVID-19 have not been well characterized. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews, cohorts, case series, case reports, editor letters, and venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients' abstracts following PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. We analyzed therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients. Inclusion: COVID-19 patients with venous thromboembolism confirmed by an imaging method (venous doppler ultrasound, ventilation-perfusion lung scan, computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, pulmonary angiography). We assessed and reported the original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for each pulmonary embolism patient. In addition, we defined major bleedings according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Results: We performed a systematic review from August 9 to August 30, 2020. We collected 1,535 papers from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley, and Opengrey. We extracted data from 89 studies that describe 143 patients. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin was used as parenteral anticoagulation in 85/143 (59%) cases. The Food and Drug Administration-approved alteplase regimen guided the advanced treatment in 39/143 (27%) patients. The mortality was high (21.6%, CI 95% 15.2-29.3). The incidence of major bleeding complications was 1 (0.9%) in the survival group and 1 (3.2%) in the death group. Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index was class I in 11.6% and II in 22.3% in survivors compared to 0% and 6.5% in non-survivors, respectively. Patients who experienced venous thromboembolism events at home were more likely to live than in-hospital events. Conclusions: We determined a high mortality incidence of pulmonary embolism and a low rate of bleeding. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin drove parenteral anticoagulation and alteplase the advanced treatment in both groups. The original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index could be helpful in the risk stratification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic various ambulatory health care models (SARS-CoV-2 contact points: Subspecialised Primary Care Practices, Fever Clinics, and Special Places for Corona-Testing) were organised in a short period in Baden-Wuerttemberg, a region in Southern Germany. The aim of these SARS-CoV-2 contact points was to ensure medical treatment for patients with (suspected) and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study aimed to assess the beliefs and practices of primary care physicians who either led a Subspecialised Primary Care Practice or a Primary Care Practice providing care as usual in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on a paper-based questionnaire in primary care physicians during the first wave of the pandemic. Participants were identified via the web page of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Baden-Wuerttemberg. The questionnaire was distributed in June and July 2020. It measured knowledge, practices, self-efficacy and fears towards SARS-CoV-2, using newly developed questions. Data was descriptively analysed. Results: One hundred fifty-five participants (92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points/ 63 leads of primary care practices) completed the questionnaire. Out of 92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points 74 stated to lead n Subspecialised Primary Care Practices. About half participants of both groups did not fear an own infection with the novel virus (between 50.8% and 62.2%), however about 75% feared financial loss. Knowledge was gained using various sources; main sources were the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (between 82.5% and 83.8%) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (RKI) (between 88.9% and 95.9%). Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident to perform anamnestic/diagnostic procedures (p < 0.001). The same was found for the confidence level regarding decision-making concerning the further treatment (p < 0.001). Several prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were adopted. Subspecialised Primary Care Practice had treated on average more patients with (suspected) COVID-19 (mean 408.12) than primary care practices (mean 83.8) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the Subspecialised Primary Care Practice that were implemented during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic contributed containment of the pandemic. Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice indicated that physical separation of patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection was easier compared to those who continued working in their own practice. Additionally, leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident in dealing with patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial registration: The study has been prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00022224). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Germany, palliative care in nursing homes is becoming increasingly important. Simultaneously, nursing homes are particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic due to their vulnerable residents leading to increased burdens for nursing staff. Although a separate unit for palliative care may not be present in nursing homes as it is in, e.g., hospitals, palliative care occupies a large portion of the workday in nursing homes. As no study addressing this topic could be found, this study focused on the research questions of how the psychosocial burdens faced by nursing staff in palliative care have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and how those burdens differ from the psychosocial burdens encountered in general care. Methods: Basen on a longitudinal cohort study design, a total of 113 nurses, nursing assistants and caregivers drawn from two nursing homes in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were surveyed pre-pandemic in 2019 and during the pandemic in 2022 using the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) III. Data were examined descriptively following the standardised COPSOQ procedure. Additionally, chi-squared test was conducted to investigate the homogeneity between the groups. Mean differences (MD) were provided and Cohen's d was calculated to evaluate relevant differences in psychosocial burdens between 2019 and 2022. In a second step, t-tests were performed to test statistical significance. Results: Relevant positive changes could be identified in 'Quantitative demands' (d = 0.321; MD = 5.9), 'Influence at work' (d = 0.244; MD = 5.4), 'Job insecurity' (d = 0.321; MD = 6.5), 'Insecurity over working conditions' (d = 0.296; MD = 6.8), 'Burnout symptoms related to residents' (d = 0.201; MD = 3.8), 'Degrees of freedom' (d = 0.455; MD = 9.6) and 'Presenteeism' (d = 0.425; MD = 11.8). Relevant negative changes were found in 'Dissolution' (d = 0.217; MD = 5.4; i.e., setting boundaries between work and private life), 'Role conflicts' (d = 0.282; MD = 5.5), 'Role clarity' (d = 0.251; MD = 3.3) and 'Burnout symptoms related to relatives' (d = 0.318; MD = 6.0). Relevant changes that were statistically significant according to the t-test could be identified in 'Degrees of freedom' (t-value=-2.40; p = 0.018) and 'Presenteeism' (t-value = 2.26; p = 0.026). Responses to questions concerning nursing homes' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic exhibited a mean score of 68.2 for 'Organisation/communication' and a mean score of 78.1 concerning 'Operational measures and overall assessment' during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Besides negative changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, some categories showed more positive results. The burdens of palliative care in nursing homes may be perceived differently than those of general care in nursing homes. Furthermore, the results indicate that perceptions of challenges in palliative care in nursing homes during the pandemic seem to be highly dependent on organisational working conditions and support that can strengthen the individual resources and resilience of the staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care homes were hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although high levels of psychosocial burden (i.e., anxiety, depression and stress) during the pandemic have been described for healthcare workers in hospitals, evidence on the psychosocial burden for nurses in care homes during the pandemic is scarce. Methods: A total of 811 nurses participated in a retrospective online survey between November 2020 and February 2021. Information about the COVID-19 situation (i.e., working demands, COVID-19 cases in their facility, and COVID-19-related burden) of nurses in German care homes during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020 to June 2020) was gathered. The Stress Scale of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (SDASS-21), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-2 (GAD-2), the Patients-Health-Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) were used to screen for psychosocial burden. Results: Among nurses, 94.2% stated that working demands since the COVID-19 pandemic increased. Further, 59.1% showed clinically relevant levels of either stress, anxiety, and/or depression. Multiple regression analysis showed significant associations between COVID-19-related burden and qualification (p <.01), dissatisfaction with COVID-19 management of care home manager (p <.05), COVID-19-related anxiety (p <.001), and dementia as a focus of care (p <.05). Stress, depression, and anxiety showed associations with COVID-19 related burden at work (p <.01), COVID-19-related anxiety (p <.001), social support (p <.01), and sense of community (p <.05). Stress was also associated with COVID-19 cases among residents (p <.05), and size of care home (p <.05). Conclusion: Short- and long-term strategies (i.e., psychosocial counseling, mandatory team meetings, more highly qualified nurses, additional training) in the work environment of nursing, in crises, but beyond, should be encouraged to reduce the burden on nursing staff in care homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a group of persistent psychological and physiological symptoms due to a traumatic, severe, event. Only few studies focused on the effects of Covid-19 on psychosocial outcomes in children with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) and their parents. Aim of the study: The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence PTSD in parents of children with T1D during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Patients and methods: In the period between March and May 2020 we submitted the "Impact of Event Scale – Revised" (IES-R) questionnaire to the parents of 34 children with Type 1 Diabetes, asking them to express their emotions about the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Results: A total of thirty mothers (mean age 43.0 ± 4.2 years) and 25 fathers (mean age 45.6 ± 5.9 years) participated in the survey and completed the questionnaires. 29.1% of parents had a score that allows to define a clinically relevant level of PTSD; ten mothers and 6 fathers had a PTSD clinically relevant score, corresponding, respectively, to 28.4 and 24% of total mothers and fathers. Finally, mothers and fathers, both express PTSD symptoms mainly in the form of intrusion and hyperarousal. Conclusions: The present study confirms a high prevalence symptoms related to PTSD in mothers and fathers of children with Type 1 Diabetes. We believe that psychosocial outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic should be taken into account in the planning of the next future assistance for children with T1D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]