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.

(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.

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.

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.

Zusammenfassung: Hintergrund: Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen. Zielsetzung: Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts. Methode: Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt. Ergebnisse: Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie. Schlussfolgerung: Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen.