ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessing nurses' knowledge and confidence in adult sepsis: evidence from two hospitals in eastern China.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Sepsis continues to pose a serious worldwide health issue, with considerable rates of illness and death, making early identification and rapid management essential for improving patient outcomes. Nurses, being the first point of patient care, have a pivotal responsibility in recognizing sepsis early and initiating timely interventions. Nevertheless, even with evidence-based frameworks like Sepsis-3 available, nurses still show knowledge deficiencies, reduced confidence, and inconsistent management practices, which can lead to delays in diagnosis and compromised care. This research set out to evaluate registered nurses' knowledge and self-rated confidence in identifying and handling adult sepsis, while also examining factors that may influence these skills. An online cross-sectional survey was carried out with 355 registered nurses from Nanjing Brain Hospital and Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine in eastern China. The survey included demographic data, a 15-item multiple-choice knowledge assessment aligned with Sepsis-3 guidelines, a 5-point Likert scale for confidence (range 5-25), and an open-ended item on organizational support needs. The data analysis employed descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression. The mean sepsis knowledge score was 10.04 ± 3.17 (out of 15), with notable gaps in recognizing early clinical signs and managing septic shock. Nurses practicing in high-acuity areas such as the ED, ICU, and the Respiratory Infection and Critical Care Unit (RICU) demonstrated significantly higher knowledge and confidence than ward-based nurses (p < .05). Higher education, senior job grade, and clinical exposure were independent predictors of better knowledge (R² = 0.156). The mean confidence score was 17.22 ± 3.62, showing a weak positive correlation with knowledge (r = .213, p = .007). Thematic analysis highlighted strong demand for structured sepsis training and standardized workflows. Significant gaps in sepsis knowledge and confidence persist among nurses, particularly in general wards. Integrating structured education, simulation-based training, and standardized protocols may enhance early recognition and improve patient outcomes.
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.