Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry.

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting "Decisional Uncertainty" provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for "Decisional Conflicts" included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. METHODS: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. CONCLUSIONS: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective.

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Impact of COVID-19 on Medical Supply in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease.

Introduction: In March 2020, the World Health organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. One year later, the direct and indirect burden of the COVID-19 pandemic become more visible. In this context, there is concern about the allocation of medical resources and medical treatment of other diseases than COVID-19. Particularly, patients with chronic diseases need constant medical and pharmacological treatment. Therefore, we evaluated a large cohort of patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) regarding postponed medical appointments and their possibilities to receive medical treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 559 patients with ACHD (mean age 37.32 ± 11.98; 47% female). Clinical characteristics, answers to questionnaires concerning lifestyle, psychological well-being, addictive behavior and adherence were related to postponed medical appointments and limited access to medical care. Results: One hundred and nine patients (19.5%) reported problems getting necessary medical treatment or visiting a physician. Higher anxiety levels (p = 0.004) emerged as the main factor associated with medical undertreatment. The main risk factors for postponement of least one medical appointment (n = 91) were higher depression (p = 0.013) and anxiety (p = 0.05) symptoms as well as female sex (p ≤ 0.0001) and documented arrhythmias (p = 0.007) indicating a particular risk group of cardiovascular complications. In contrast, frequent physical activity identified patients at lower risk. Conclusion: In ACHD anxiety and depressive symptoms handicap patients to receive medical care. Postponement of medical appointments additionally relates to female sex and documented arrhythmias. The latter indicates that patients at high risk of adverse cardiac outcome avoid routine medical care. Our data may lead policy makers to develop strategies for the provision of medical services to particular vulnerable patient groups, and to optimize management of both future pandemics and daily routine.

[Use of outpatient psychotherapy via video consultation]. / Nutzung der ambulanten Psychotherapie über die Videosprechstunde: Ein Drittel der Patienten wird nicht erreicht.

Background: Due to the hygiene measures during the coronavirus pandemic at the beginning of 2020, psychotherapy by personal attendance was no longer possible or only possible to a limited extent in many places in Germany. In its place, psychotherapy via video conference was used as an alternative option for treatment. Objective: The present study was concerned with the question of the actual use of this form of psychotherapy during the lockdown. Material and methods: Therapists in the psychotherapeutic training outpatient department of the Medical School of Hanover were questioned on their experiences and the experiences of patients with the use of the video consultation during running guideline psychotherapy. Data from 338 patents could be collated. The data contained information, for example on acceptance or rejection of the offer of a video consultation, on the reasons for rejection and on technical problems by the execution. Results: The presented data show that 35% of patients could not be reached by the video consultation. Approximately half of the patients from this group could not use this form of therapy due to the lack of technical equipment. The other half did not want therapy using the video consultation, although the technical requirements were available. In the group of patients who used the video consultation, the session was interrupted due to technical disturbances in 31% of the cases. In a further 10% of the cases the disturbances even led to a premature termination of the session. The presented data make it clear that the use of therapy via video consultation significantly decreases with increasing age and reduced education level. Conclusion: The results of the present study show that a considerable proportion of the patients could not be reached by the offer, despite the dissemination of the video consultation; therefore, in the case of further lockdowns special offers for this group should be considered. The authors recommend that the health insurance companies provide support for patients who do not have the technical requirements at their disposal. Patients who do not want to participate in this form of treatment need therapeutically motivating support.

[Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Patients Treated with Psychotropic Drugs]. / COVID-19-Impfung unter Psychopharmakotherapie.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been available in the European Union since December 2020. Persons suffering from mental illness have an increased risk of a severe or fatal course following an infection with SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the question arises to what extent interactions between the newly approved vaccines and psychotropic drugs may be expected. Data on the tolerability and efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 under treatment with psychotropic drugs are not available to date - however, potential interactions can be derived from previous investigations on vaccines against other pathogens, such as a reduced immune response with lower clinical efficacy and an increase in drug plasma levels due to the indirect vaccine-mediated inhibition of metabolizing enzymes. On the other hand, depressed patients treated with antidepressant medication show a better immune response.

Peripandemic psychiatric emergencies: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients according to diagnostic subgroup.

On March 11th, 2020, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic. Governments took drastic measures in an effort to reduce transmission rates and virus-associated morbidity. This study aims to present the immediate effects of the pandemic on patients presenting in the psychiatric emergency department (PED) of Hannover Medical School. Patients presenting during the same timeframe in 2019 served as a control group. A decrease in PED visits was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic with an increase in repeat visits within 1 month (30.2 vs. 20.4%, pBA = 0.001). Fewer patients with affective disorders utilized the PED (15.2 vs. 22.2%, pBA = 0.010). Suicidal ideation was stated more frequently among patients suffering from substance use disorders (47.4 vs. 26.8%, pBA = 0.004), while patients with schizophrenia more commonly had persecutory delusions (68.7 vs. 43.5%, pBA = 0.023) and visual hallucinations (18.6 vs. 3.3%, pBA = 0.011). Presentation rate of patients with neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders increased. These patients were more likely to be male (48.6 vs. 28.9%, pBA = 0.060) and without previous psychiatric treatment (55.7 vs. 36.8%, pBA = 0.089). Patients with personality/behavioral disorders were more often inhabitants of psychiatric residencies (43.5 vs. 10.8%, pBA = 0.008). 20.1% of patients stated an association between psychological well-being and COVID-19. Most often patients suffered from the consequences pertaining to social measures or changes within the medical care system. By understanding how patients react to such a crisis situation, we can consider how to improve care for patients in the future and which measures need to be taken to protect these particularly vulnerable patients.