ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pre-hospital emergency medical care practitioners regarding sepsis recognition: a cross-sectional study in Qatar.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundSepsis remains a leading cause of global morbidity. Early recognition is frequently delayed due to heterogeneous clinical presentations and the absence of definitive diagnostic tools, particularly in the pre-hospital setting. This study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of pre-hospital emergency medical care (PHEMC) practitioners at Hamad Medical Corporation Ambulance Service (HMCAS) in Qatar to evaluate sepsis recognition and inform context-specific strategies for improving pre-hospital care.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted within HMCAS using a 53-item survey developed through literature synthesis, expert review, and pilot testing. Analyses were primarily descriptive, with exploratory bivariate testing of associations between practitioner characteristics and KAP measures. A multiple linear regression model was constructed to identify predictors of diagnostic confidence using confidence in prompt and accurate sepsis diagnosis as the dependent variable.
resultsOf the 221 licensed practitioners who completed the survey, most were male (90%) and aged 31-40 years. Only 33.5% of respondents correctly determined that the patient in Scenario 1 did not have sepsis, whereas 79.2% correctly identified sepsis in Scenario 2, which represented a more overt septic presentation. Although 59.7% reported considering sepsis even in the absence of fever or a clear source of infection, scenario-based accuracy did not reflect this self-reported awareness. Awareness of screening tools was common, but their use was predominantly reactive, occurring after clinical suspicion had already been established. Diagnostic confidence was highest among practitioners who had received recent/up-to-date sepsis training (p < 0.001).
conclusionDespite widespread awareness and training, early-stage sepsis recognition among PHEMC practitioners in Qatar remains inconsistent and largely reactive. Self-reported confidence and familiarity with screening tools did not reliably translate into accurate determination of whether sepsis was present, highlighting a gap between perceived and actual competence. These findings suggest that improving pre-hospital sepsis recognition may require system-level and behavioural interventions in addition to education.
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.