ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Understanding ICU Nursing Knowledge, Perceived Barriers, and Facilitators of Sepsis Recognition and Management: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 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.
- Lessons Learned from Sepsis Microlearning Intervention.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Trial
- Nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and decision-making related to sepsis assessment and management in Palestinian intensive care units.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceNursing workforce changes, knowledge translation gaps, and environmental/organizational barriers may impact sepsis recognition and management within the ICU.
objectivesTo: 1) evaluate current ICU nursing knowledge of sepsis recognition and management, 2) explore individual and environmental or organizational factors impacting nursing recognition and management of sepsis using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and 3) describe perceived barriers and facilitators to nursing recognition and management of patients with sepsis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsThis cross-sectional survey was administered to nurses working in four general system ICUs between October 24, 2023, and January 30, 2024. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quantitative questions (single/multiple choice, true/false, and Likert-based questions eliciting agreement with a statement) were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Open-ended questions exploring barriers and facilitators to sepsis recognition and management were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsA total of 101 completed survey responses were retained. Most nurses agreed early sepsis detection saves lives (n = 98, 97%, TDF domain Beliefs About Consequences) and that nursing care can improve patient outcomes (n = 97, 96%, TDF domain Optimism). Fewer nurses agreed it was easy to identify priority sepsis interventions based on order urgency (n = 53, 53%, TDF domain Memory, Attention, and Decision Processes). Reoccurring barriers and facilitators to sepsis recognition and management were commonly identified across the TDF domains of Knowledge, Skills, Environmental Context and Resources, and Social Influences, including competency deficit (with facilitators including support from colleagues), workload or staffing, and equipment or resource availability. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: ICU nursing sepsis recognition and management is impacted by numerous individual, environmental, and organizational factors. Recommendations include enhanced competency development or support, utilization of structured reinforcement measures (involving the interdisciplinary team and imploring the use of integrative technologies), and addressing equipment/resource-related gaps. Future research and improvement initiatives should use a theory-informed approach to overcome the pervasive, complex challenges impeding timely sepsis recognition and management.
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.