Implementation of health-related quality of life in the German TraumaRegister DGU® - first results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND Approximately 30,000 people are affected by severe injuries in Germany each year. Continuous progress in prehospital and hospital care has significantly reduced the mortality of polytrauma patients. With increasing survival rates, the functional outcome, health-related quality (hrQoL) of life and ability to work are now gaining importance. Aim of the study is, the presentation of the response behavior of seriously injured patients on the one hand and the examination of the factors influencing the quality of life and ability to work 12 months after major trauma on the other hand. Building on these initial results, a standard outcome tool shall be integrated in the established TraumaRegister DGU® in the future. METHODS In 2018, patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16; age:18-75 years] underwent multicenter one-year posttraumatic follow-up in six study hospitals. In addition to assessing hrQoL by using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), five additional questions (treatment satisfaction; ability to work; trauma-related medical treatment; relevant physical disability, hrQoL as compared with the prior to injury status) were applied. RESULTS Of the 1,162 patients contacted, 594 responded and were included in the analysis. The post-injury hrQoL does not show statistically significant differences between the sexes. Regarding age, however, the younger the patient at injury, the better the SF-12 physical sum score. Furthermore, the physically perceived quality of life decreases statistically significantly in relation to the severity of the trauma as measured by the ISS, whereas the mentally perceived quality of life shows no differences in terms of injury severity. A large proportion of severely injured patients were very satisfied (42.2%) or satisfied (39.9%) with the treatment outcome. It should be emphasized that patients with a high injury severity (ISS > 50) were on average more often very satisfied with the treatment outcome (46.7%). A total of 429 patients provided information on their ability to work 12 months post-injury. Here, 194 (45.2%) patients had a full employment, and 58 (13.5%) patients were had a restricted employment. CONCLUSION The present results show the importance of a structured assessment of the postinjury hrQoL and the ability to work after polytrauma. Further studies on the detection of influenceable risk factors on hrQoL and ability to work in the intersectoral course of treatment should follow to enable the best possible outcome of polytrauma survivors

Evaluation of Prehospital Undertriage in Relation to Trauma Team Activation-Results from a Prospective Study in 12 Level one German Trauma Centers

Background/Objective: This prospective, multicenter observational cohort study was carried out in 12 trauma centers in Germany and Switzerland. Its purpose was to evaluate the rate of undertriage, as well as potential consequences, and relate these with different Trauma Team Activation Protocols (TTA-Protocols), as this has not been done before in Germany. Methods: Each trauma center collected the data during a three-month period between December 2019 and February 2021. All 12 participating hospitals are certified as supra-regional trauma centers. Here, we report a subgroup analysis of undertriaged patients. Those included in the study were all consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with acute trauma admitted to the emergency department of one of the participating hospitals by the prehospital emergency medical service (EMS) within 6 h after trauma. The data contained information on age, sex, trauma mechanism, pre- and in-hospital physiology, emergency interventions, emergency surgical interventions, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and death within 48 h. Trauma team activation (TTA) was initiated by the emergency medical services. This should follow the national guidelines for severe trauma using established field triage criteria. We used various denominators, such as ISS, and criteria for the appropriateness of TTA to evaluate the undertriage in four groups. Results: This study included a total of 3754 patients. The average injury severity score was 5.1 points, and 7.0% of cases (n = 261) presented with an injury severity score (ISS) of 16+. TTA was initiated for a total of 974 (26%) patients. In group 1, we evaluated how successful the actual practice in the EMS was in identifying patients with ISS 16+. The undertriage rate was 15.3%, but mortality was lower in the undertriage cohort compared to those with a TTA (5% vs. 10%). In group 2, we evaluated the actual practice of EMS in terms of identifying patients meeting the appropriateness of TTA criteria; this showed a higher undertriage rate of 35.9%, but as seen in group 1, the mortality was lower (5.9% vs. 3.3%). In group 3, we showed that, if the EMS were to strictly follow guideline criteria, the rate of undertriage would be even higher (26.2%) regarding ISS 16+. Using the appropriateness of TTA criteria to define the gold standard for TTA (group 4), 764 cases (20.4%) fulfilled at least one condition for retrospective definition of TTA requirement. Conclusions: Regarding ISS 16+, the rate of undertriage in actual practice was 15.3%, but those patients did not have a higher mortality

A Local Survey of COVID-19: Vaccine Potential Acceptance Rate among Personnel in a Level 1 Trauma Center without Severe COVID-19 Cases

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in hospitals are at high risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers’ infection risk could be amplified during the ongoing pandemic due to various factors, including continuous exposure to patients and inadequate infection control training. Despite the risk healthcare workers face, vaccine hesitancy remains a global challenge. Differences in acceptance rates have ranged from less than 55% (in Russia) to nearly 90% (in China). In order to improve our knowledge of vaccine acceptance and its variation in rates, an evaluation is warranted. A survey was thus administered to healthcare workers. Methods: This survey aimed to address vaccination acceptance among employees in an urban level 1 trauma hospital. It was conducted through a developed and structured questionnaire that was randomly distributed online among the staff (age ≥18 years) to receive their feedback. Results: Among 285 participants (out of 995 employees), 69% were female, and 83.5% were overaged more than 30 years of age. The two largest groups were nurses (32%) and doctors (22%). The majority of respondents reported that they would “like to be vaccinated” (77.4%) and that they trusted the COVID-19 vaccine (62%). Moreover, 67.8% also reported that they felt the vaccination was effective. They reported that vaccination was a method to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (85.15%) and was a way to protect individuals with weak immune systems (78.2%). More importantly, the participants were concerned about other people (80.1%) and believed the vaccine would protect others. On the other hand, the result showed that the majority of participants (95.3%) chose to be vaccinated once everyone else was vaccinated, “I don’t need to get vaccinated”. Results showed that the majority of participants that chose “I don’t need to get vaccinated” did so after everyone else was vaccinated. Our results show that COVID-19 vaccination intention in a level 1 trauma hospital was associated with older age males who are more confident, and also share a collective responsibility, are less complacent, and have fewer constraints. Conclusion: Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine is relatively low among healthcare workers (HCWs). Differences in vaccine acceptance have been noted between different categories of HCWs and genders. Therefore, addressing barriers to vaccination acceptance among these HCWs is essential to avoid reluctance to receive the vaccination, but it will be challenging

COVID-19: Vaccination Side Effects and Sick Leave in Frontline Healthcare-Workers—A Web-Based Survey in Germany

(1) Background: The COVID-19 vaccination has caused uncertainty among employees and employers regarding vaccination reactions and incapacitation. At the time of our study, three vaccines are licensed in Germany to combat the COVID-19 pandemic (BioNTech/Pfizer (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria), and Moderna (Spikevax). We aim to assess how often and to what extent frontline healthcare workers had vaccination reactions after the first and second vaccination. The main focus is on the amount of sick leave after the vaccinations. (2) Methods: We create a web-based online questionnaire and deliver it to 270 medical directors in emergency medical services all over Germany. They are asked to make the questionnaire public to employees in their area of responsibility. To assess the association between independent variables and adverse effects of vaccination, we use log-binomial regression to estimate prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for dichotomous outcomes (sick leave). (3) Results: A total of 3909 individuals participate in the survey for the first vaccination, of whom 3657 (94%) also provide data on the second vaccination. Compared to the first vaccination, mRNA-related vaccine reactions are more intense after the second vaccination, while vaccination reactions are less intense for vector vaccines. (4) Conclusion: Most vaccination reactions are physiological (local or systemic). Our results can help to anticipate the extent to which personnel will be unable to work after vaccination. Even among vaccinated HCWs, there seems to be some skepticism about future vaccinations. Therefore, continuous education and training should be provided to all professionals, especially regarding vaccination boosters. Our results contribute to a better understanding and can therefore support the control of the pandemic

A Local Survey of COVID-19: Vaccine Potential Acceptance Rate among Personnel in a Level 1 Trauma Center without Severe COVID-19 Cases

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in hospitals are at high risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers’ infection risk could be amplified during the ongoing pandemic due to various factors, including continuous exposure to patients and inadequate infection control training. Despite the risk healthcare workers face, vaccine hesitancy remains a global challenge. Differences in acceptance rates have ranged from less than 55% (in Russia) to nearly 90% (in China). In order to improve our knowledge of vaccine acceptance and its variation in rates, an evaluation is warranted. A survey was thus administered to healthcare workers. Methods: This survey aimed to address vaccination acceptance among employees in an urban level 1 trauma hospital. It was conducted through a developed and structured questionnaire that was randomly distributed online among the staff (age ≥18 years) to receive their feedback. Results: Among 285 participants (out of 995 employees), 69% were female, and 83.5% were overaged more than 30 years of age. The two largest groups were nurses (32%) and doctors (22%). The majority of respondents reported that they would “like to be vaccinated” (77.4%) and that they trusted the COVID-19 vaccine (62%). Moreover, 67.8% also reported that they felt the vaccination was effective. They reported that vaccination was a method to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (85.15%) and was a way to protect individuals with weak immune systems (78.2%). More importantly, the participants were concerned about other people (80.1%) and believed the vaccine would protect others. On the other hand, the result showed that the majority of participants (95.3%) chose to be vaccinated once everyone else was vaccinated, “I don’t need to get vaccinated”. Results showed that the majority of participants that chose “I don’t need to get vaccinated” did so after everyone else was vaccinated. Our results show that COVID-19 vaccination intention in a level 1 trauma hospital was associated with older age males who are more confident, and also share a collective responsibility, are less complacent, and have fewer constraints. Conclusion: Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine is relatively low among healthcare workers (HCWs). Differences in vaccine acceptance have been noted between different categories of HCWs and genders. Therefore, addressing barriers to vaccination acceptance among these HCWs is essential to avoid reluctance to receive the vaccination, but it will be challenging

Étude cinétique de la déshydratation catalytique du methanol et du tertiobutanol sur silice-alumine a l’aide d’un réacteur sans gradient

La déshydratation du méthanol et du tertiobutanol sur un catalyseur silice-alumine est étudiée dans un réacteur sans gradient. Le dépouillement des résultats expérimentaux par ordinateur permet : la vérification de la loi cinétique obtenue à faible taux de conversion, le calcul des constantes de vitesse, des chaleurs et des entropies d’adsorption, et des nombres de sites actifs

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination among Front-Line Health Care Workers: A Nationwide Survey of Emergency Medical Services Personnel from Germany

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel as front-line health care workers (HCW) in Germany. Several studies have shown low willingness for vaccination (e.g., seasonal influenza) among HCWs and EMS personnel. Methods: We created a web-based survey. The questions were closed and standardized. Demographic data were collected (age, sex, federal state, profession). Experience with own COVID-19 infection, or infection in personal environment (family, friends) as well as willingness to vaccinate was queried. Results: The sample includes n = 1296 participants. A willingness to be vaccinated exists in 57%, 27.6% participants were undecided. Our results show a higher propensity to vaccinate among the following groups: male gender, higher medical education level, older age, own burden caused by the pandemic (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Due to the low overall acceptance of vaccination by HCWs, we recommend that the groups with vaccination hesitancy, in particular, be recruited for vaccination through interventions such as continuing education and awareness campaigns

Incidence, impact and risk factors for multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in patients with major trauma: a European Multicenter Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: The burden of MDRO in health systems is a global issue, and a growing problem. We conducted a European multicenter cohort study to assess the incidence, impact and risk factors for multidrug-resistant organisms in patients with major trauma. We conducted this study because the predictive factors and effects of MDRO in severely injured patients are not yet described. Our hypothesis is that positive detection of MDRO in severely injured patients is associated with a less favorable outcome. METHODS: Retrospective study of four level-1 trauma centers including all patients after major trauma with an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 9 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) between 2013 and 2017. Outcome was measured using the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). RESULTS: Of 4131 included patients, 95 (2.3%) had a positive screening for MDRO. Risk factors for MDRO were male gender (OR 1.73 [95% CI 1.04-2.89]), ISS (OR 1.01 [95% CI 1.00-1.03]), PRBC's given (OR 1.73 [95% CI 1.09-2.78]), ICU stay > 48 h (OR 4.01 [95% CI 2.06-7.81]) and mechanical ventilation (OR 1.85 [95% CI 1.01-3.38]). A positive MDRO infection correlates with worse outcome. MDRO positive cases GOS: good recovery = 0.6%, moderate disability = 2.1%, severe disability = 5.6%, vegetative state = 5.7% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MDRO in severely injured patients are rare but associated with a worse outcome at hospital discharge. We identified potential risk factors for MDRO in severely injured patients. Based on our results, we recommend a standardized screening procedure for major trauma patients