ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2017
Emergency medical service personnel need to improve knowledge and attitude regarding prehospital sepsis care.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pre-hospital emergency medical care practitioners regarding sepsis recognition: a cross-sectional study in Qatar.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Prehospital fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection: a survey of ambulance personnel's practice.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Understanding the Knowledge and Attitude of Prehospital Sepsis Care among Emergency Medical Service Personnel.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of emergency medical service (EMS) personnel pertaining to sepsis. We also compared EMS personnel's knowledge of sepsis and their intention to engage in prehospital sepsis management.
methodsThe survey was conducted during education conferences for EMS personnel in December 2013 and January 2015 in Seoul, Korea. The questionnaire composed of 10 questions relevant to sepsis, was distributed on-scene, and was retrieved by investigators after the conference. We classified subjects into active and passive groups based on intent to participate in prehospital sepsis care.
resultsA total of 271 questionnaires were distributed; 255 EMS personnel (94%) completed the survey, 126 (49%) of whom were first-degree emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Less than 75% of subjects provided clinically relevant responses to questions about the definitions of sepsis, tachycardia, tachypnea, hypotension, hypothermia, fluid resuscitation, and vasopressor. Only 15% of participants had suspected that a patient had sepsis, and 9% reported that they could identify patients with sepsis during transportation. Overall, first-degree EMTs showed higher levels of knowledge and a positive attitude to sepsis compared with non-first-degree EMTs. Sixty percent of the participants reported that they were actively involved in prehospital sepsis care. The active group showed significantly higher levels of knowledge and more positive responses to the clinical impact of prehospital sepsis care.
conclusionOur study showed that is a substantial portion of EMS personnel lacks appropriate level of knowledge on sepsis care. We also found that the intention to engage in sepsis management was associated with appropriate knowledge of sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.