Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

For patients with acute respiratory insufficiency, mechanical (“invasive”) ventilation is a fundamental therapeutic measure to ensure sufficient gas exchange. Despite decades of strong research efforts, central questions on mechanical ventilation therapy are still answered incompletely. Therefore, many different ventilation modes and settings have been used in daily clinical practice without scientifically sound bases. At the same time, implementation of the few evidence-based therapeutic concepts (e.g., “lung protective ventilation”) into clinical practice is still insufficient. The aim of our guideline project “Mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal gas exchange in acute respiratory insufficiency” was to develop an evidence-based decision aid for treating patients with and on mechanical ventilation. It covers the whole pathway of invasively ventilated patients (including indications of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, additional and rescue therapies, and liberation from mechanical ventilation). To assess the quality of scientific evidence and subsequently derive recommendations, we applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For the first time, using this globally accepted methodological standard, our guideline contains recommendations on mechanical ventilation therapy not only for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients but also for all types of acute respiratory insufficiency. This review presents the two main chapters of the guideline on choosing the mode of mechanical ventilation and setting its parameters. The guideline group aimed that – by thorough implementation of the recommendations – critical care teams may further improve the quality of care for patients suffering from acute respiratory insufficiency. By identifying relevant gaps of scientific evidence, the guideline group intended to support the development of important research projects.

Background: Mechanical ventilation is life-saving for patients with acute respiratory insufficiency. In a German prevalence study, 13.6% of patients in intensive care units received mechanical ventilation for more than 12 hours; 20% of these patients received mechanical ventilation as treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The new S3 guideline is the first to contain recommendations for the entire process of treatment in these groups of patients (indications, ventilation modes/parameters, accompanying measures, treatments for refractory impairment of gas exchange, weaning, and follow-up care). Methods: This guideline was developed according to the GRADE methods. Pertinent publications were identified by a systematic search of the literature, the quality of the evidence was evaluated, a risk/benefit assessment was conducted, and recommendations were issued by interdisciplinary consensus. Results: Mechanical ventilation is recommended as primary treatment for patients with severe ARDS. In other patient groups, non-invasive ventilation can lower mortality. If mechanical ventilation is needed, ventilation modes allowing spontaneous breathing seem beneficial (quality of evidence [QoE]: very low). Protective ventilation (high positive end-expiratory pressure, low tidal volume, limited peak pressure) improve the survival of ARDS patients (QoE: high). If a severe impairment of gas exchange is present, prone positioning lessens mortality (QoE: high). Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) has not unequivocally been shown to improve survival. Early mobilization and weaning protocols can shorten the duration of ventilation (QoE: moderate). Conclusion: Recommendations for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation include lung-protective ventilation, early spontaneous breathing and mobilization, weaning protocols, and, for those with severe impairment of gas exchange, prone positioning. It is further recommended that patients with ARDS and refractory impairment of gas exchange should be transferred to an ARDS/ECMO center, where extracorporeal methods should be applied only after application of all other therapeutic options.

(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one’s personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants’ acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.

Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65–1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03–1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71–0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51–2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.

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. 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. 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. 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.