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.

(1) Background: Approximately 73 countries worldwide implemented a daylight saving time (DST) policy: setting their clocks forward in spring and back in fall. The main purpose of this practice is to save electricity. The aim of the present study was to find out how DST affects the incidence and impact of seriously injured patients. (2) Methods: In a retrospective, multi-center study, we used the data recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) between 2003 and 2017 from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. We compared the included cases 1 week before and after DST. (3) Results: After DST from standard time to summertime, we found an increased incidence of accidents of motorcyclists up to 51.58%. The result is consistent with other studies. (4) Conclusion: However, our results should be interpreted as a tendency. Other influencing factors, such as time of day and weather conditions, were not considered.

(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.

(1) Background: Injuries related to resuscitation are not usually systematically recorded and documented. By evaluating this data, conclusions could be drawn about the quality of the resuscitation, with the aim of improving patient care and safety. (2) Methods: We are planning to conduct a multicentric, retrospective 3-phased study consisting of (1) a worldwide literature review (scoping review), (2) an analysis of anatomical pathological findings from local institutions in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany to assess the transferability of the review data to the German healthcare system, and (3) depending on the results, possibly establishing potential prospective indicators for resuscitation-related injuries as part of quality assurance measures. (3) Conclusions: From the comparison of literature and local data, the picture of resuscitation-related injuries will be focused on and quality indicators will be derived.

Purpose: Alongside surgical therapy, the successful treatment of infection-related nonunion depends on the accurate identification of pathogens so as to ensure targeted anti-infective treatment. The available diagnostic methods continue to exhibit low sensitivity. The aim of the study was to determine the most sensitive method for the accurate diagnosis of infection-related nonunion by comparing sonication with other diagnostic procedures. Methods: In a prospective comparative study, 100 patients with nonunions (study group, SG) and 100 patients with planned metal removal (control group, CG) were compared. The diagnostic methods employed included standard culture, enrichment in blood culture bottles after tissue homogenization, sonication with and without membrane filtration, and histopathology. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. Results: In 133 patients (SG n = 73; CG n = 60), at least one sample was tested positive for a bacterium. Infection was diagnosed in 72 patients (SG n = 45; CG n = 27). Coagulase-negative staphylococci and Cutibacterium acnes were the most frequently detected pathogens. Sonication achieved the highest sensitivity (80.6%) for detecting an infection but there was no significant difference as compared to the other methods. The combination of standard culture and sonication yielded the greatest overall sensitivity (97.2%), whereas the combination of tissue homogenization and histology achieved the best results for specificity (89.1%) and predictive values (82.3%). Conclusion: A high rate of pathogen detection was observed in clinically inapparent nonunions. Sonication was not clearly superior in our setting. In general, the combination of several diagnostic methods provided the most informative results. Therefore, sonication and tissue homogenization can both be considered useful additions to standard cultures.

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.