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.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund In der COVID-19-Pandemie ging die Versorgung nichtübertragbarer Erkrankungen zeitweise deutlich zurück, auch weil Menschen Angst vor einer Ansteckung hatten. Wir führen eine Bestandsaufnahme zur organisationalen Gesundheitskompetenz in der Regelversorgung nichtübertragbarer Erkrankungen in der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie durch und fragen: Inwiefern wurden Menschen mit gesundheitlichen Beschwerden dabei unterstützt, gesundheitskompetente Entscheidungen für oder gegen die Inanspruchnahme von Versorgungsleistungen zu treffen? Methodik Strukturierende Inhaltsanalyse der Internetpräsenzen der Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlich Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF; n = 179), der kassen(zahn)ärztlichen Vereinigungen (K(Z)Ven; n = 38), ausgewählter Krankenkassen (n = 21), ausgewählter Behandlungseinrichtungen (n = 25) und überregionaler Anbieter von Gesundheitsinformationen (n = 5) zu Informationen und Angeboten zum Thema. Ergebnisse Die geprüften Internetpräsenzen informieren weitgehend rund um COVID-19, aber nur selten darüber, wie man sich bei einer (vermuteten) anderen Erkrankung in Bezug auf die Inanspruchnahme von Versorgungsleistungen verhält. 2 Portale von Anbietern von Gesundheitsinformationen, eine Krankenkasse, aber keine der KVen bieten explizite Entscheidungshilfen an. KVen weisen öfter, aber nicht durchgängig auf die generelle Möglichkeit von Videosprechstunden hin. Diskussion Für die meisten Patient*innen gab es damit keine gezielten Informationen zu dem Thema. Angesichts der Fortdauer der COVID-19-Pandemie gilt es, vorhandene vertrauenswürdige, qualitativ hochwertige Informations- und Beratungskapazitäten auszubauen und ihre Bekanntheit zu erhöhen, um gesundheitskompetente Entscheidungen auch in der Pandemie zu ermöglichen.

No abstract

This cross-sectional study focuses on the status of COPD-related fears and impairments of adult patients receiving ambulant care as well as their use of self-management strategies. On the basis of the COPD Clinical Questionnaire, COPD Disability Index, COPD Assessment Test and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire, COPD-dependent fears and impairments were determined in a convenience sample. Furthermore, data on important characteristics of the illness experience were gathered by semi-standardised interviews. Altogether, 80 patients (average age: 67.1 ± 8.5 years) took part in the quantitative interviews. In addition, 10 patients (average age: 68.2 ± 4.1 years) took part in qualitative interviews. Results showed that there were disease-related impairments in the areas of respiration, recovery and physical stress as well as in family and domestic obligations. Furthermore, illness-dependent fears had a high relevance in the study population. The management of COPD-related fears and taking into consideration information and counseling needs of these patients are important intervention approaches. On the basis of the presented results, evidence-based, multi-disciplinary, and disease-, situation- and above all, patient' needs-related interventions could be planned to support patients in self-management skills.

Background Chronic heart disease affects millions of people worldwide and the prevalence is increasing. By now, there is an extensive literature on outpatient care of people with chronic heart disease. We aimed to systematically identify and map models of outpatient care for people with chronic heart disease in terms of the interventions included and the outcomes measured and reported to determine areas in need of further research. Methods We created an evidence map of published systematic reviews. PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify all relevant articles from January 2000 to June 2021 published in English or German language. From each included systematic review, we abstracted search dates, number and type of included studies, objectives, populations, interventions, and outcomes. Models of care were categorised into six approaches: cardiac rehabilitation, chronic disease management, home-based care, outpatient clinic, telemedicine, and transitional care. Intervention categories were developed inductively. Outcomes were mapped onto the taxonomy developed by the COMET initiative. Results The systematic literature search identified 8043 potentially relevant publications on models of outpatient care for patients with chronic heart diseases. Finally, 47 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, covering 1206 primary studies (including double counting). We identified six different models of care and described which interventions were used and what outcomes were included to measure their effectiveness. Education-related and telemedicine interventions were described in more than 50% of the models of outpatient care. The most frequently used outcome domains were death and life impact. Conclusion Evidence on outpatient care for people with chronic heart diseases is broad. However, comparability is limited due to differences in interventions and outcome measures. Outpatient care for people with coronary heart disease and atrial fibrillation is a less well-studied area compared to heart failure. Our evidence mapping demonstrates the need for a core outcome set and further studies to examine the effects of models of outpatient care or different interventions with adjusted outcome parameters. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42020166330).