The loss of several pancreases seems avoidable. Many refusal reasons are not plausible, because there is no evidence supporting the refusal and because many of these organs were transplanted by other centers. This increases inefficiency in the allocation system.

BackgroundMost offered pancreases are not transplanted. This study investigates the factors that inform and influence the transplant surgeon’s decision to select an offered pancreas.MethodsSemi-standardized interviews were conducted with 14 highly qualified transplant surgeons from all 14 German transplant centers performing > 5 pancreas transplantations per year. The interviews focused on medical and non-medical criteria on which the individual accept/refuse decision depends. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and underwent content analysis.ResultsThe interviewees agreed upon certain main selection criteria, e.g. donor age, lab results, ICU stay. However, there was no consistency in judging these parameters, and clear cut-offs did not exist. The pancreas macroscopy is a pivotal factor, as well as knowing (and trusting) the donor surgeon. 3/14 surgeons reported that they had occasionally refused a pancreas because of staff shortage. Some interviewees followed a restrictive acceptance policy, whereas others preferred to accept almost any pancreas and inspect it personally before deciding.ConclusionThe assessment of medical donor characteristics is highly inconsistent. Both very cautious as well as very permissive acceptance policies may render the allocation process less efficient. A more standardized policy should be discussed. Finally, better training for donor surgeons seems advisable, in order to increase trust and thus pancreas utilization.

Background Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors often suffer from cognitive, physical and mental impairments, known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). ICU follow-up clinics may improve aftercare of these patients. There is a lack of evidence whether or which concept of an ICU follow-up clinic is effective. Within the PINA study, a concept for an ICU follow-up clinic was developed and will be tested in a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), primarily to evaluate the feasibility and additionally the potential efficacy. Methods/design Design: Pilot RCT with intervention and control (usual care) arms plus mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants: 100 ICU patients (50 per arm) of three ICUs in a university hospital (Regensburg, Germany), ≥ 18 years with an ICU stay of > 5 days, a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score > 5 during the ICU stay and a life expectancy of more than 6 months. Intervention: The intervention will contain three components: information, consultation and networking. Information will be available in form of an intensive care guide for patients and next of kin at the ICU and phone support during follow-up. For consultation, patients will visit the ICU follow-up clinic at least once during the first 6 months after discharge from ICU. During these visits, patients will be screened for symptoms of PICS and, if required, referred to specialists for further treatment. The networking part (e.g. special referral letter from the ICU follow-up clinic) aims to provide a network of outpatient care providers for former ICU patients. Feasibility Outcomes: Qualitative and quantitative evaluation will be used to explore reasons for non-participation and the intervention´s acceptability to patients and caregivers. Efficacy Outcomes: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) will be assessed as primary outcome by the physical component score (PCS) of the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire (SF-12). Secondary outcomes encompass further patient-reported outcomes. All outcomes are assessed at 6 months after discharge from ICU. Discussion The PINA study will determine feasibility and potential efficacy of a complex intervention in a pilot RCT to enhance follow-up care of ICU survivors. The pilot study is an important step for further studies in the field of ICU aftercare and especially for the implementation of a pragmatic multi-centre RCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04186468. Submitted 2 December 2019

Faced with the pandemic of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), healthcare professionals (HCPs) in intensive care units (ICU) adjusted their organizational, operational, and personal procedures to ensure care for COVID-19 patients. We used grounded theory approach to explore ICU HCPs' perspectives on professional action at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany from March to July 2020. The study aimed to examine implicit principles on negotiating social practice and interaction of ICU HCPs in an exceptional situation, which was characterized by a high level of changes. We conducted theme-guided qualitative telephone/virtual interviews with 39 ICU HCPs from ten German federal states. The data collection followed the principles of theoretical sampling. We adpoted grounded theory approach proposed by Charmaz and discussed using Lüscher’s theoretical concept of ambivalence. The analysis revealed five interconnected categories about the ICU HCPs’ negotiation of social practice and interaction at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. In this context, a complex field of ambivalence (key category) emerged between habits and routines of a pre-pandemic normality. Pragmatic restructuring processes were initiated, which quickly resulted in a new normality of a “daily routine of preparation”. Dealing with ambivalence offers the potential for change.

A COS is a systematically developed list of outcomes recommended for reporting all studies within a particular disease area. The Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) and the Core Outcome Measures in Food Allergy (COMFA) Initiative Joint Meeting was held virtually on September 23 through 28, 2021. This meeting brought together core outcome set (COS) developers within the domains of dermatology and food allergy, respectively. The meeting assessed the state of COS methodology, provided a forward look, and facilitated the networking of members of individual COS groups. The meeting hosted several expert-led key addresses and focus sessions, in which work was critically discussed, new developments were shared, and groundwork was laid for future projects. The conference emphasized the importance of ongoing COS work to improve patient outcomes and limit research waste.