Search

Fragestellung: Trauma ist die häufigste Todesursache bei Patienten unter dem 45.Lebensjahr. Etwa die Hälfte der Todesfälle wird durch Verbluten verursacht. In der Präklinik begegnet man bei polytraumatisierten Patienten neben Extremitätenblutungen, die gut durch Kompressionsverbände [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL]

Fragestellung: Die Versorgung schwerverletzter Patienten ist zentraler Bestandteil der Luftrettung. Der Ausbruch der COVID-19-Pandemie nahm Einfluss auf das innerklinische Geschehen mit Reduktion von Elektiveingriffen und einem geringeren Patientenaufkommen z.B. in unfallchirurgischen Notaufnahmen. [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL]

OA Förderung 2021 (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(R) (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.

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. OA Förderung 2021

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 &lt, 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.

Background and Objectives: The SARS-CoV‑2 pandemic and the different manifestations of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are a major challenge for health systems worldwide. Medical personnel have a special role in containing the pandemic. The aim of the study was to investigate the SARS-CoV‑2 IgG antibody prevalence in extraclinical personnel depending on their operational area in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: On May 28 and 29, 2020, serum samples were taken from 732 of 1183 employees (61.9%) of the professional fire brigade and aid organizations in the city area and tested for SARS-CoV‑2 IgG antibodies. The employees were divided into four categories according to their type of participation. category 1: decentralized PCR sampling teams, category 2: rescue service, category 3: fire protection, category 4: situation center. Some employees participated in more than one operational area. Results: SARS-CoV‑2 IgG antibodies were detected in 8 of 732 serum samples. This corresponds to a prevalence of 1.1%. A previous COVID-19 infection was known in 3 employees. In order to make a separate assessment of the other employees possible and to diagnose unknown infections, a corrected collective of 729 employees with 6 SARS-CoV‑2 antibody detection was considered separately. The prevalence in the corrected collective is 0.82%. After subdividing the collective into areas of activity, the prevalence was low (1: 0.77%, 2: 0.9%, 3: 1.00%, 4: 1.58%). Conclusions: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the study collective is low at 1.1% and 0.82%, respectively. There is an increased seroprevalence in operational areas with a lower risk of virus exposure in comparison to operational areas with a higher risk. in press

in press

Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2021

ABO blood group has a profound influence on hemostasis as it is a major determinant of plasma levels of von Willebrand Factor. In vitro studies suggest that blood group O is a risk factor for increased severe bleeding while blood group non-O is a risk factor for thromboembolic events. Yet, the impact of ABO blood group outcome after multiple trauma is unknown. Retrospective multicenter case-control study from three level-1 trauma centers in Germany from 2012-2015. Inclusion criteria were severe trauma with an Injury severity score ≥9 and admission to an intensive care unit. 1281 patients (69.5% male) were included. Mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 21.1±12.4; mean age was 50.2±22.4 years. Distribution of blood groups was: O: 37.4%; A: 44%, B: 12.7 and AB: 5.8%. Hospital mortality depending on blood group was 9.7 (A), 10.4 (B), 6.8 (AB) and 12.7 (O) %. Multivariant logistic regression for mortality revealed an Odds ratio of 0.79 (A), 0.60 (B) and 0.54 (AB) without statistical significance (P=0.35 (A), 0.17 (B), 0.33 (AB)). Thromboembolic events (blood group O vs. others) occurred in 2.8 (O) vs. 3.3 (others) %, P=0.619. In this retrospective study on 1281 multiple injured patients, no relevant influence of ABO blood group on hemorrhage, thromboembolic events and mortality could be found. OA Förderung 2019