Local, collaborative, stepped, and personalized care management for older people with chronic diseases - results from the randomized controlled LoChro-trial.

BACKGROUND: In the aging population of Western societies, an increasing number of older adults have multiple chronic diseases. As multifaceted health problems imply the involvement of several healthcare professionals, multimorbid older people frequently face a fragmentation of health care. Addressing these challenges, we developed a local, collaborative, stepped, and personalized care management approach (LoChro-Care) and evaluated its effectiveness. METHODS: A two-group, parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing LoChro-Care recipients (IG) to participants with usual care (CG). Patients aged 65 + with chronic conditions were recruited at inpatient and outpatient departments of the Medical Center, University of Freiburg. Participants were allocated using block randomization (nIG = 261, nCG = 263). LoChro-Care comprised individualized care provided by chronic care managers with 7 to 13 contacts over 12 months. Questionnaires were given at 3 time points (T0: baseline, T1: after 12 months, T2: after 18 months). The primary outcome was the physical, psychological, and social health status represented by a composite score of functional health and depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes were the participants' evaluation of their health care situation, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and life-satisfaction (LS). The data were analyzed using linear mixed modelling. RESULTS: We analyzed N = 491 participants (nIG = 244, nCG = 247), aged M = 76.78 years (SD = 6.35). For the composite endpoint, neither a significant difference between IG and CG (p = .88) nor a group-time interaction (p = .52; p = .88) could be observed. Participants in both groups showed a significant decline on the primary outcome between T0 and T2 (p < .001). Post hoc analyses revealed a decline in both functional health (p < .001) and depressive symptoms (p = .02). Both groups did not differ in their evaluation of their health care situation (p = .93), HRQL (p = .44) or LS (p = .32). Relevant confounding variables were female gender and multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: Supporting patients' self-management in coordinating their individual care network through LoChro-Care did not result in any significant effect on the primary and secondary outcomes. A decline of functional health and depressive symptoms was observed among all participants. Potential future intervention adaptations are discussed, such as a more active case management through direct referral to (in-)formal support, an earlier treatment initiation, and the consideration of specific sociodemographic factors in care management planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00013904 (02.02.2018), https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00013904.

A Comparison and Evaluation of International Guidelines on the Treatment of Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: When the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began, no uniform treatment and care strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients were yet available. National and international treatment recommendations were formulated under time pressure, initially on the basis of indirect evidence from the treatment of similar diseases. In this article, we give an overview of the content, currency, and methodological quality of the existing national and international guidelines, with special attention to the care of critically ill patients. METHODS: Guidelines were identified by a comprehensive search, the included guidelines were assessed in standardized fashion with the AGREE II guideline assessment instrument and according to the AMWF rulebook criteria, and the core recommendations of the included and methodologically high-quality guidelines were compared. RESULTS: Nine of the 97 guidelines that were identified fulfilled the content criteria for inclusion, and 6 of these fulfilled the qualitative criteria; these 6 guidelines still differed, however, in the topics to which they devoted the most attention, as well as in their methodological quality and currency. The treatment strategies for patients with severe respiratory failure (lung-protective ventilation strategies and rescue measures) deviated little from established standards. Uniform recommendations were made, among other things, for the administration of dexamethasone, which was recommended in all of the guidelines for patients requiring oxygen treatment, as well as for antithrombotic drug prophylaxis and for the prone positioning of ventilated patients. Many recommendations were based on insufficient evidence, and some were contradictory, e.g., those regarding antibiotic treatment or the choice between high-flow oxygen administration via nasal canula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CONCLUSION: The consultation of multiple high-quality international guidelines and guideline recommendations shared in online portals such as MagicApp are helpful sources of information for clinicians. In view of the continuing lack of strong evidence, further research on intensive care treatments is needed (aspects of ventilation, positioning therapy, and the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]).

A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Online Survey on the Treatment of COVID-19-ARDS: High Variance in Standard of Care in German ICUs.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and-in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed-better communication to care providers. METHODS: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. RESULTS: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. CONCLUSIONS: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care.

Targeted Minimal Staff-to-Patient Ratios Are Unachievable - A Nationwide Survey in German ICUs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction Adequate staffing in the intensive care units (ICUs) is the most important factor to provide optimal care and ensure favorable outcomes in critically ill patients. Recently, the need for ICU beds has reached unprecedented levels and the management and treatment of critically ill patients has been in focus. The aim of the study was to assess the targeted and actual nurse-to-patient (NPR) and physician-to-patient ratios (PPR) regarding patients with and without COVID-19. Methods We conducted a nationwide online survey assessing the standard of care in German ICUs treating patients with COVID-19. We asked questions regarding targeted PPR and NPR and their implementation in daily clinical practice to heads of German ICU departments. Results We received 244 responses of which 171 were eligible for final analysis. Targeted median PPR ratio was 8 [interquartile range (IQR) = 4] and targeted NPR was 2 (IQR = 1). For COVID-19 patients, the median targeted PPR was 6 (IQR = 2) and the median targeted NPR was 2 (IQR = 0). Targeted PPRs were rarely met by 15.2% and never met by 3.5% of responding institutions. Targeted NPRs were rarely met in 32.2% and never in 5.3% of responding institutions. Conclusion In contrast to PPR, targeted NPRs were largely unattainable in German ICUs. Our results raise concern in view of studies linking worse outcomes in critically ill patients to suboptimal NPRs. This warrants further health policy efforts regarding optimal staffing in the ICU.

Infection control, prophylactic antibiotics, and testing for SARS-CoV-2 and PPE on German intensive care units: results from a national mixed methods survey.

Aim: Recommendations on hygiene measures, personal protective equipment (PPE), isolation, and antibiotic prophylaxis were developed during the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic and have been revised several times to date. Some of the underlying literature indicates a large evidence gap. We suspect that this leads to a large variance of measures on German intensive care units (ICU). Methods: A mixed methods online survey among intensive-care specialists in Germany caring for COVID-19 patients was conducted in December 2020. Results: We received responses from 205 German ICUs that had treated COVID-19 patients to date. There was wide variation in the use of PPE. Polymerase Chain reaction (PCR) testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was used by 94.8% of the units, with an average waiting time of 12 hours for the result. 18.7% of the respondents prescribed antibiotic prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: We found a high variance in essential care strategies for COVID-19 patients on German intensive care units. This included differences in infection prophylaxis, personal protective equipment, and the indication of prophylactic antibiotic therapy. Based on our results, we recommend further studies to quantify and improve guideline adherence.