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.

Increased prevalence of irritant hand eczema in health care workers in a dermatological clinic due to increased hygiene measures during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene measures in the general population and in health care workers have increased considerably since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence and symptoms of hand eczema, as well as hygiene measures and concepts of care, in German health care workers. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was an observational questionnaire study to investigate hygiene and skin care habits, as well as the prevalence and symptoms of hand eczema in 66 nurses and doctors of our dermatology department before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: Hand washing and hand disinfection procedures increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-diagnosed hand eczema was reported by 33% of the participants, with a median duration of 14 days. The majority of staff currently affected by hand eczema were free of eczema a month previously (82%) and would treat their skin condition with emollients (77%). Erythema, scaling, burning and fissures were reported by 66.1% of the participants and were classified as predominant signs of toxic-irritant hand dermatitis rather than contact allergy. CONCLUSION: Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to a significant increase in the incidence of signs of irritant hand eczema despite intensified emollient use as a preventive measure. Awareness of the prevalence of hand eczema in health care workers in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic should be raised, and preventive measures should be intensified.

Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for the Development and Update of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Viewpoint.

Following the rapid spread of a new type of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), nearly all countries have introduced temporary restrictions affecting daily life, with "social distancing" as a key intervention for slowing the spread of the virus. Despite the pandemic, the development or actualization of medical guidelines, especially in the rapidly changing field of oncology, needs to be continued to provide up-to-date evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for shared decision making and maintaining the treatment quality for patients. In this viewpoint, we describe the potential strengths and limitations of online conferences for medical guideline development. This viewpoint will assist guideline developers in evaluating whether online conferences are an appropriate tool for their guideline conference and audience.