Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
J Neurosci Nurs ; 54(3): 111-115, 2022 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831469

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: A diverse group of neuroscience nurse experts discussed stroke nursing research at the 5th International Neuroscience Nursing Research Symposium. Panel experts from Singapore, India, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Malawi, Germany, Palestine, Kenya, Japan, and the United States collaborated to examine similarities and differences in nurse-led stroke research conducted in their home countries. This article reflects panel insights on challenges and opportunities for nurse-led stroke research. DISCUSSION: The research challenges discussed include nursing independence, the processes of informed consent and randomization process, obtaining adequate independent funding, recruiting research subjects, and working with vulnerable groups. The major opportunities to leverage and improve stroke nursing research include facilitating the nurse investigator role, information digitalization, improving health literacy, and collaboration between nurse researchers. SUMMARY: We are living in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, and the COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated many challenges. There is a need to allow for creativity around recruitment and conducting stroke research. The use of technology reduces travel needs and mitigates many safety, financial, and transportation-related problems. Although the pandemic has highlighted the challenges faced when conducting stroke-related research, there are remarkable similarities in opportunities to improve outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nursing Research , Stroke , Humans , Neuroscience Nursing , Pandemics , United States
2.
J Intensive Care Med ; 37(9): 1256-1264, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1808051

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mobilization and acute rehabilitation are essential in the intensive care unit (ICU), with substantial evidence supporting their benefits. This study aimed to characterize ICU mobilization practices during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international point prevalence study. All ICUs across the world were eligible to participate and were required to enroll all patients in each ICU on the survey date, 27 January 2021. The primary outcome was the achievement of mobilization at the level of sitting over the edge of the bed. Independent factors associated with mobilization, including COVID-19 infection, were analyzed by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 135 ICUs in 33 countries participated, for inclusion of 1229 patients. Among patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation (MV), those with COVID-19 infection were mobilized more than those without COVID-19 (60% vs. 34%, p < 0.001). Among patients who were receiving MV, mobilization was low in both groups (7% vs. 9%, p = .56). These findings were consistent irrespective of ICU length of stay. Multivariable analysis showed that COVID-19 infection was associated with achievement of mobilization in patients without (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.71-7.42) and with MV (aOR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.00-4.51). Factors that prevented mobilization were prone positioning in patients without MV and continuous use of neuromuscular blockade and sedation agents in patients with MV, whereas facilitating factors were the presence of targets/goals in both groups. CONCLUSION: Mobilization rates for ICU patients across the globe are severely low, with the greatest immobility observed in mechanically ventilated patients. Although COVID-19 is not an independent barrier to the mobilization of patients with or without MV, this study has highlighted the current lack of mobility practice for all ICU patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.(299 words).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Early Ambulation , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial
3.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 117(5): 349-357, 2022 Jun.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1782757

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Relatives of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) face a challenging situation: they often experience an existential crisis with great emotional stress and at the same time they are often actively involved in therapeutic decisions. The visiting restrictions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have created new challenges in providing support to relatives. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work is to present current and new developments in supporting relatives of critically ill patients in the form of a narrative review. RESULTS: In recent years, numerous new approaches and projects to support relatives have been developed. They can be assigned to the following six areas: 1) presence of relatives in the ICU, 2) proactive involvement in care, 3) structured communication/information and online offers, 4) multidisciplinary cooperation, 5) organizational management and 6) follow-up offers. The evidence and the current implementation status of these measures are very heterogeneous internationally and nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Measures for providing support for ICU relatives are diverse. Some can even be implemented despite visit bans. Recent digital developments enable virtual visits and a better exchange of information between the ICU team and relatives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Procare : das forbildungsmagazin fur pflegeberufe ; 27(1-2):12-15, 2022.
Article in German | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1710938

ABSTRACT

Zutrittsbeschränkungen in Krankenhäusern in der COVID-19-Pandemie führen zu großen Belastungen bei Patienten, ihren Angehörigen und Mitarbeitenden. Für die Kliniken stellen sie eine komplexe organisationsethische Herausforderung dar. Die vorliegenden prozeduralen Empfehlungen sollen die Entscheidungsfindung auf Meso- und Mikroebene unterstützen.

5.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 735860, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1518494

ABSTRACT

Background: Data regarding delivery of evidence-based care to critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial but lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle, which is a collection of six evidence-based ICU care initiatives which are strongly recommended to be incorporated into clinical practice, and ICU diaries for patients with and without COVID-19 infections in ICUs, and to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on implementation of each element of the bundle and independent associated factors. Methods: A world-wide 1-day point prevalence study investigated the delivery of the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary to patients without or with COVID-19 infections on 27 January 2021 via an online questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for patient demographics evaluated the impact of COVID-19 and identified factors in ICU administrative structures and policies independently associated with delivery. Results: From 54 countries and 135 ICUs, 1,229 patients were eligible, and 607 (49%) had COVID-19 infections. Implementation rates were: entire bundle (without COVID-19: 0% and with COVID-19: 1%), Element A (regular pain assessment: 64 and 55%), Element B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials: 17 and 10%), Element C (regular sedation assessment: 45 and 61%), Element D (regular delirium assessment: 39 and 35%), Element E (exercise: 22 and 25%), Element F (family engagement/empowerment: 16 and 30%), and ICU diary (17 and 21%). The presence of COVID-19 was not associated with failure to implement individual elements. Independently associated factors for each element in common between the two groups included presence of a specific written protocol, application of a target/goal, and tele-ICU management. A lower income status country and a 3:1 nurse-patient ratio were significantly associated with non-implementation of elements A, C, and D, while a lower income status country was also associated with implementation of element F. Conclusions: Regardless of COVID-19 infection status, implementation rates for the ABCDEF bundle, for each element individually and an ICU diary were extremely low for patients without and with COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Strategies to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the complete ABCDEF bundle should be optimized and addressed based on unit-specific barriers and facilitators.

6.
Clin Nutr ; 2021 Sep 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1469831

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nutrition therapy for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients involves complex decision-making, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the use of nutrition therapy in ICU patients with and without COVID-19 infections. METHODS: Nutrition therapy was evaluated during a world-wide one-day prevalence study focused on implementation of the ABCDEF bundle (A: regular pain assessment, B: both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, C: regular sedation assessment, D: regular delirium assessment, E: early mobility and exercise, and F: family engagement and empowerment) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basic ICU and patient demographics including nutrition therapy delivery were collected on the survey day. Physical activity for patients with and without COVID infections was categorized using the ICU mobility scale (IMS). Multivariable regression analysis of nutrition was conducted using ICU parameters. RESULTS: The survey included 627 non-COVID and 602 COVID patients. A higher proportion of COVID-19 patients received energy ≥20 kcal/kg/day (55% vs. 45%; p = 0.0007) and protein ≥1.2 g/kg/day (45% vs. 35%; p = 0.0011) compared to non-COVID patients. Enteral nutrition was provided to most COVID patients even with prone positioning (91%). Despite nutrition therapy, IMS was extremely low in both groups; median IMS was 1 in non-COVID patients and 0 in COVID patients. The rate of energy delivery ≥20 kcal/kg/day was significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 infections in the subgroup of ICU days ≤5 days and IMS ≤2. Having a dedicated ICU nutritionist/dietitian was significantly associated with appropriate energy delivery in patients both with and without COVID-19 infections, but not with protein delivery. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with COVID-19 infections received higher energy and protein delivery. Generally low mobility levels highlight the need to optimize early mobilization with nutrition therapy in all ICU patients.

7.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-291174

ABSTRACT

Background: Although the number of patients with COVID-19 infection is increasing and concerns for their long-term disabilities are increasing, there is a lack of data about the delivery of the ABCDEF-bundle and supportive care in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). The aim of this study is to investigate the implementation of the ABCDEF-bundle and supportive care provided to patients with COVID-19 infections in ICUs. Methods: This was a world-wide two-day point prevalence study, on June 3 and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries (166 ICUs on Day 1 and 212 on Day 2) participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys. The implementation rate for elements of the ABCDEF-bundle, other supportive ICU care measures and implementation associated structures were investigated. RESULTS Data for 262 patients was collected during the two-day study. Of patients included, 124 (47.3%) underwent mechanical ventilation (MV) and 12 (4.6%) patients were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The proportion of patients with implementation of each element was: Element A (regular pain assessment) 45%;B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials) 28%;C (regular sedation assessment) 52%;D (regular delirium assessment) 38%;E (early mobility and exercise) 47%;and F (family engagement and empowerment) 16%. The implementation of element E for patients on MV was 16% and ECMO was 17%. Supportive care, such as providing protein throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of an ICU diary (25%) was inadequate. A higher implementation rate of elements A and D were recognized in ICUs with specific protocols for ICU care and lower numbers of ICU beds exclusively for patients with COVID-19 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs with more ICU beds for patients with COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS This worldwide two-day point prevalence study found low implementation of the ABCDEF-bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with COVID-19 infections might be key factors to deliver appropriate supportive care.Trial registration: UMIN, UMIN000040405. Registered 14 May 2020, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000046103

8.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 68: 103139, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401494

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To provide insights into visiting policies and family-centred care practices with a focus on children as visitors in Intensive Care Units in German-speaking countries. METHODS/DESIGN: Online-survey with a mixed methods approach. Leading clinicians (n = 1943) from German-speaking countries were invited to participate. Outcomes included the percentage of intensive care units with open visiting policies, age restrictions, family-centred care activities and barriers. SETTING: Paediatric, mixed and adult units RESULTS: In total, 19.8% (n = 385) of the clinicians responded. Open visiting times were reported by 36.3% (n = 117), with significant differences between paediatric (79.2%), adult (21.3%) and mixed-age (41.2%) units (p < 0.01). Two-thirds of clinicians stated that their units had no age restrictions for children as visitors (n = 221, 68.4%). The family-centred care activities most frequently implemented were open visiting times and dissemination of information. Significantly more German units have open visiting policies and more Swiss units allow children as visitors, compared to the other countries (both p < 0.001). Barriers to family-centred care were concerns about children being traumatized, infection and workload. CONCLUSION: The majority reported that family-centred care policies had been implemented in their units, including open visiting policies, allowing children as visitors without age restriction and other family-centred care activities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Family , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Visitors to Patients
9.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 116(5): 415-420, 2021 Jun.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173880

ABSTRACT

Visitation restrictions in hospitals during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic led to great psychological burden for patients, their relatives and employees. For hospitals, they represent a complex organizational challenge with respect to ethics. The present recommendations are intended to support decision-making at the meso- and microlevels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Decision Making , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(3): e0353, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1158024

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate implementation of evidence-based and supportive cares in ICUs, such as the ABCDEF, nutrition therapy, and ICU diary, for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICUs and their association with ICU clinical practice and setting. DESIGN: A worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study. SETTING: The study was carried out on June 3, 2020, and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys. PATIENTS: The ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The implementation rate for the elements of the ABCDEF bundle, other supportive ICU care measures, and implementation-associated structures were investigated. Data were collected for 262 patients, of whom 47.3% underwent mechanical ventilation and 4.6% were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each element was implemented for the following percentages of patients: elements A (regular pain assessment), 45%; B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials), 28%; C (regular sedation assessment), 52%; D (regular delirium assessment), 35%; E (early mobility and exercise), 47%; and F (family engagement and empowerment), 16%. The implementation of element E was 4% for patients on mechanical ventilation and 8% for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Supportive care, such as protein provision throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2 g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of ICU diary (25%), was infrequent. Implementation rates of elements A and D were higher in ICUs with specific protocols and fewer ICU beds exclusively for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs that had more ICU beds assigned for them. CONCLUSIONS: This point prevalence study showed low implementation of the ABCDEF bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection might be key factors for delivering appropriate supportive care.

11.
Anaesthesist ; 70(9): 753-760, 2021 09.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1074379

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic challenges hospital clinicians by additional burdens. Key questions are whether hospital clinicians have experienced more stress in the care of COVID-19 patients and whether patient safety and quality of care have changed. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using an online survey with clinicians in German hospitals on working conditions and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing clinicians with (MmK) vs. without direct contact (MoK) to COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: In total, 2122 clinicians participated. Most clinicians were physicians (15.4%, n = 301) or nurses (77.0%, n = 1505) working in major acute care hospitals (46.0%, n = 899). Every second respondent stated that they worked more than usual (46.4%, n = 907) and took on additional activities (47.7%, n = 932). A quarter of the participants did not receive any training or get instructions in devices (21.5%, n = 421). Only 51.5% (n = 1006) of the respondents were provided with sufficient personal protective equipment. More than 30% (32.7%, n = 639) were more satisfied than usual. The comparing clinicans with vs. without direkt contact to Covid-19 patients worked more shifts than usual (> 2 shifts: 24.1%, n = 306 vs. 13.7%, n = 63, p < 0.001) and without instruction (27.9%, n = 364 vs. 17.1%), n = 57, p < 0.001). In terms of patient safety, there were more deficiencies in the care, mechanical ventilation and nursing (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The cross-sectional study indicates an increased burden on clinicians and a restricted quality of care for patients with COVID-19. A risk to patients or clinicians cannot be excluded.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Quality of Health Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL