Validation and cultural adaptation of a German version of the Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scales

Contains fulltext : 51656.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to examine the validity of a translated and culturally adapted version of the Physicians' Reaction to Uncertainty scales (PRU) in primary care physicians. METHODS: In a structured process, the original questionnaire was translated, culturally adapted and assessed after administering it to 93 GPs. Test-retest reliability was tested by sending the questionnaire to the GPs again after two weeks. RESULTS: The principal factor analysis confirmed the postulated four-factor structure underlying the 15 items. In contrast to the original version, item 5 achieved a higher loading on the 'concern about bad outcomes' scale. Consequently, we rearranged the scales. Good item-scale correlations were obtained, with Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.56-0.84. As regards the item-discriminant validity between the scales 'anxiety due to uncertainty' and 'concern about bad outcomes', partially high correlations (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.02-0.69; p < 0.001) were found, indicating an overlap between both constructs. The assessment of internal consistency revealed satisfactory values; Cronbach's alpha of the rearranged version was 0.86 or higher for all scales. Test-retest-reliability, assessed by means of the intraclass-correlation-coefficient (ICC), exceeded 0.84, except for the 'reluctance to disclose mistakes to physicians' scale (ICC = 0.66). In this scale, some substantial floor effects occurred, with 29.3% of answers showing the lowest possible value. CONCLUSION: Dealing with uncertainty is an important issue in daily practice. The psychometric properties of the rearranged German version of the PRU are satisfying. The revealed floor effects do not limit the significance of the questionnaire. Thus, the German version of the PRU could contribute to the further evaluation of the impact of uncertainty in primary care physicians

Correction to: Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods: A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results: 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years

Early Antibiotic Treatment for Severe Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

A double-blind randomized trial of early meropenem versus placebo for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis failed to find any reduction in infectious complications or mortality in the treated group

Drotrecogin alfa (Activated) in adults with septic shock

There have been conflicting reports on the efficacy of recombinant human activated protein C, or drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), for the treatment of patients with septic shock.In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we assigned 1697 patients with infection, systemic inflammation, and shock who were receiving fluids and vasopressors above a threshold dose for 4 hours to receive either DrotAA (at a dose of 24 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or placebo for 96 hours. The primary outcome was death from any cause 28 days after randomization.At 28 days, 223 of 846 patients (26.4%) in the DrotAA group and 202 of 834 (24.2%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk in the DrotAA group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.28; P=0.31). At 90 days, 287 of 842 patients (34.1%) in the DrotAA group and 269 of 822 (32.7%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19; P=0.56). Among patients with severe protein C deficiency at baseline, 98 of 342 (28.7%) in the DrotAA group had died at 28 days, as compared with 102 of 331 (30.8%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.17; P=0.54). Similarly, rates of death at 28 and 90 days were not significantly different in other predefined subgroups, including patients at increased risk for death. Serious bleeding during the treatment period occurred in 10 patients in the DrotAA group and 8 in the placebo group (P=0.81).DrotAA did not significantly reduce mortality at 28 or 90 days, as compared with placebo, in patients with septic shock. (Funded by Eli Lilly; PROWESS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604214.)

Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey , a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years