Trial reportBMJ open2021
General practitioners' views and experiences in caring for patients after sepsis: a qualitative interview study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Piloting an ICU follow-up clinic - qualitative process evaluation alongside a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Recovery After Critical Illness: A Meta-Ethnography of Patient, Family and Staff Perspectives.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
- Transitional care after hospitalization for sepsis in Germany- results from the population-based AVENIR cohort study.Infection · 2025Article
- Who is responsible for follow-up after critical illness? GP, ICU and patient perspectives.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Supporting Post-ICU Recovery: A Narrative Review for General Practitioners.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Improving Outcomes in Survivors of Sepsis-The Transition from Secondary to Primary Care, and the Role of Primary Care: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Sepsis Care Pathways-Qualitative Pilot Expert Interviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Care pathways of sepsis survivors: sequelae, mortality and use of healthcare services in France, 2015-2018.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Hospital Discharge Summaries Are Insufficient Following ICU Stays: A Qualitative Study.Critical care explorations · 2022Article
- Facilitating high quality acute care in resource-constrained environments: Perspectives of patients recovering from sepsis, their caregivers and healthcare workers in Uganda and Malawi.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients surviving critical illnesses, such as sepsis, often suffer from long-term complications. After discharge from hospital, most patients are treated in primary care. Little is known how general practitioners (GPs) perform critical illness aftercare and how it can be improved. Within a randomised controlled trial, an outreach training programme has been developed and applied.
objectivesThe aim of this study is to describe GPs' views and experiences of caring for postsepsis patients and of participating a specific outreach training.
designSemistructured qualitative interviews.
setting14 primary care practices in the metropolitan area of Berlin, Germany.
participants14 GPs who had participated in a structured sepsis aftercare programme in primary care.
resultsThemes identified in sepsis aftercare were: continuity of care and good relationship with patients, GP's experiences during their patient's critical illness and impact of persisting symptoms. An outreach education as part of the intervention was considered by the GPs to be acceptable, helpful to improve knowledge of the management of postintensive care complications and useful for sepsis aftercare in daily practice.
conclusionsGPs provide continuity of care to patients surviving sepsis. Better communication at the intensive care unit-GP interface and training in management of long-term complications of sepsis may be helpful to improve sepsis aftercare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN61744782.
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.