ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025
[Working conditions in German intensive care units-A cross-professional analysis].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [One Minute Wonder: on the job training].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- [Working conditions in German intensive care units-A cross-professional analysis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care medicine represents a highly complex and labor-intensive field that entails unique physical, psychological and structural challenges for both physicians and nursing personnel. The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the working conditions in German intensive care units (ICUs), with a particular focus on differences between professional groups, hospital types and individual characteristics, such as gender, professional experience and training level.
methodUsing a German language online questionnaire a total of 753 ICU personnel from all professional groups were surveyed regarding working conditions, workload and job satisfaction. Recruitment was conducted via professional societies and social media.
resultsThe results reveal significant differences in job satisfaction depending on the nurse-to-patient ratio, employment level, professional experience and gender. Nursing personnel with a favorable staffing ratio (1:2) reported higher satisfaction and lower stress levels. Younger and less experienced staff reported insufficient preparation, increased stress and lower satisfaction with training and continuing education. Physicians in training, and especially female staff members, more frequently reported having to perform tasks without adequate preparation. Furthermore, gender-based disparities were observed regarding recognition and assumption of responsibility.
conclusionThe findings highlight the urgent need for structural reformation to improve working conditions in ICUs. Key areas for action include structured onboarding, flexible work schedule models, targeted support for junior staff and gender equity as well as improvements in interprofessional collaboration and staffing levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40586919What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.