Search

Copyright of GMS German Medical Science is the property of German Medical Science Publishing House gGmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Delirium is a serious complication in patients in intensive care units. Previous surveys on delirium management in daily practice showed low adherence to published guidelines. Aim: To evaluate delirium management in nurses and physicians working in intensive care units in German-speaking countries and to identify related differences between nurses and physicians. Design: The study used an open online survey with multiple-choice responses. Methods: An invitation for participation was spread via journals and electronic resources using a snowball system. Apart from recording socio-demographical characteristics, the survey collected data on delirium assessment, delirium-related processes, non-pharmacological prevention and treatment and barriers for implementation. Differences between nurses and physicians were tested by Fisher's exact test with sequential Bonferroni correction. Results: The survey was conducted in autumn 2016, and 559 clinicians participated. More nurses than physicians reported screening for delirium. The majority of clinicians reported screening for delirium when this was suspected; more than 50% used validated instruments. Half of the clinicians had delirium-related structures implemented, such as two thirds reporting delirium-related processes. Most cited barriers were lack of time and missing knowledge about delirium and its assessment. With significant difference, physicians recommended more than nurses early removal of catheters and daily interprofessional goals for patients. Conclusion: In German-speaking countries, assessment of delirium needs further improvement, leading to accurate assessment. Delirium-related structures and processes appear to be implemented widely, with only a few differences between nurses and physicians. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses and physicians in this survey reported similar perceptions and attitudes towards management of delirium. Both professions need more knowledge and inter-professional training on when and how to use validated assessment instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality improvement in medicine is depending on measurement of relevant quality indicators. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2013 underwent a scheduled evaluation after three years. There were major changes in several indicators but also some indicators were changed only minimally. The focus on treatment processes like ward rounds, management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, as well as the number of 10 indicators were not changed. Most topics remained except for early mobilization which was introduced instead of hypothermia following resuscitation. Infection prevention was added as an outcome indicator. These quality indicators are used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. A validity period of three years is planned for the quality indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There is growing evidence to support early mobilization of adult mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs. However, there is little knowledge regarding early mobilization in routine ICU practice. Hence, the interdisciplinary German ICU Network for Early Mobilization undertook a 1 -day point-prevalence survey across Germany. Design: One-day point-prevalence study. Setting: One hundred sixteen ICUs in Germany in 2011. Patients: All adult mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: For a 24-hour period, data were abstracted on hospital and ICU characteristics, the level of patient mobilization and associated barriers, and complications occurring during mobilization. One hundred sixteen participating ICUs provided data for 783 patients. Overall, 185 patients (24%) were mobilized out of bed (i.e., sitting on the edge of the bed or higher level of mobilization). Among patients with an endotracheal tube, tracheostomy, and noninvasive ventilation, 8%, 39%, and 53% were mobilized out of bed, respectively (p < 0.001 for difference between three groups). The most common perceived barriers to mobilizing patients out of bed were cardiovascular instability (17%) and deep sedation (15%). Mobilization out of bed versus remaining in bed was not associated with a higher frequency of complications, with no falls or extubations occurring in those mobilized out of bed. Conclusions: In this 1-day point-prevalence study conducted across Germany, only 24% of all mechanically ventilated patients and only 8% of patients with an endotracheal tube were mobilized out of bed as part of routine care. Addressing modifiable barriers for mobilization, such as deep sedation, will be important to increase mobilization in German ICUs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The guideline update outlines the advantages as well as the limitations of NIV in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in daily clinical practice and in different indications.Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has a high value in therapy of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, as it significantly reduces the length of ICU stay and hospitalization as well as mortality.Patients with cardiopulmonary edema and acute respiratory failure should be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and oxygen in addition to necessary cardiological interventions. This should be done already prehospital and in the emergency department.In case of other forms of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with only mild or moderately disturbed gas exchange (PaO 2 /FiO 2  > 150 mmHg) there is no significant advantage or disadvantage compared to high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). In severe forms of ARDS NIV is associated with high rates of treatment failure and mortality, especially in cases with NIV-failure and delayed intubation.NIV should be used for preoxygenation before intubation. In patients at risk, NIV is recommended to reduce extubation failure. In the weaning process from invasive ventilation NIV essentially reduces the risk of reintubation in hypercapnic patients. NIV is regarded useful within palliative care for reduction of dyspnea and improving quality of life, but here in concurrence to HFNO, which is regarded as more comfortable. Meanwhile NIV is also recommended in prehospital setting, especially in hypercapnic respiratory failure and pulmonary edema.With appropriate monitoring in an intensive care unit NIV can also be successfully applied in pediatric patients with acute respiratory insufficiency., Competing Interests: Eine Übersicht der Interessenkonflikt findet sich im Internet unter http://awmf.org; AWMF-Registernummer 020-004., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

The measurement of quality indicators supports quality improvement initiatives. The German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) has published quality indicators for intensive care medicine for the fourth time now. After a scheduled evaluation after three years, changes in several indicators were made. Other indicators were not changed or only minimally. The focus remained strongly on relevant treatment processes like management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, and infections in the ICU. Another focus was communication inside the ICU. The number of 10 indicators remained the same. The development method was more structured and transparency was increased by adding new features like evidence levels or author contribution and potential conflicts of interest. These quality indicators should be used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. Other forms of measurement and evaluation are also reasonable, for example in quality management. This fourth edition of the quality indicators will be updated in the future to reflect the recently published recommendations on the structure of intensive care units by the DIVI., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. Potential conflicts of interest for QI development are indicated in Attachment 2., (Copyright © 2023 Kumpf et al.)

Introduction: Quality improvement and safety in intensive care are rapidly evolving topics. However, there is no gold standard for assessing quality improvement in intensive care medicine yet. In 2007 a pilot project in German intensive care units (ICUs) started using voluntary peer reviews as an innovative tool for quality assessment and improvement. We describe the method of voluntary peer review and assessed its feasibility by evaluating anonymized peer review reports and analysed the thematic clusters highlighted in these reports., Methods: Retrospective data analysis from 22 anonymous reports of peer reviews. All ICUs - representing over 300 patient beds - had undergone voluntary peer review. Data were retrieved from reports of peers of the review teams and representatives of visited ICUs. Data were analysed with regard to number of topics addressed and results of assessment questionnaires. Reports of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT reports) of these ICUs are presented., Results: External assessment of structure, process and outcome indicators revealed high percentages of adherence to predefined quality goals. In the SWOT reports 11 main thematic clusters were identified representative for common ICUs. 58.1% of mentioned topics covered personnel issues, team and communication issues as well as organisation and treatment standards. The most mentioned weaknesses were observed in the issues documentation/reporting, hygiene and ethics. We identified several unique patterns regarding quality in the ICU of which long-term personnel problems und lack of good reporting methods were most interesting Conclusion: Voluntary peer review could be established as a feasible and valuable tool for quality improvement. Peer reports addressed common areas of interest in intensive care medicine in more detail compared to other methods like measurement of quality indicators.

Quality indicators are key elements of quality management. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2010 were recently evaluated when their validity time expired after two years. Overall one indicator was replaced and further three were in part changed. The former indicator I "elevation of head of bed" was replaced by the indicator "Daily multi-professional ward rounds with the documentation of daily therapy goals" and added to the indicator IV "Weaning and other measures to prevent ventilator associated pneumonias (short: Weaning/VAP Bundle)" (VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia) which aims at the reduction of VAP incidence. The indicator VIII "Documentation of structured relative-/next-of-kin communication" was refined. The indicator X "Direction of the ICU by a specially trained certified intensivist with no other clinical duties in a department" was also updated according to recent study results. These updated quality indicators are part of the Peer Review in intensive care medicine. The next update of the quality indicators is due in 2016.