ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2026
Sepsis Recognition and Management Gaps in Hospitals: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Subset of Data from the European Sepsis Care Survey.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05059808 (European Sepsis Care Survey), which is not on this 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.
European Sepsis Care Survey
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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSepsis is a life-threatening condition and its management should be a hospital priority. The European Sepsis Care Survey (ESCS) investigated the implementation of guideline recommendations and the availability of infrastructure for sepsis care across Europe. Our objective was to provide a country‑level baseline assessment of sepsis care in hospitals and to identify deficiencies in sepsis recognition and management.
methodsData from 55 hospitals located in Poland were analyzed regarding sepsis definitions, screening, management, infrastructure, and quality improvement programs (QIPs) in emergency departments (EDs), wards, and intensive care units (ICUs).
resultsSepsis-3 criteria were applied in 44% of hospitals. Sepsis screening and standardized management were used in 27% and 38.2% of EDs, 21% and 30.8% of wards, and 62% and 86.7% of ICUs, respectively. QIPs were present in 37% of hospitals, yet regular sepsis training across departments was reported by only 6.6%. In hospitals with QIPs, key indicators of sepsis care were monitored more frequently, including sepsis cases (76.5% versus 41.4%), mortality (70.6% versus 20.7%), time-to-antibiotics (29.4% versus 0%), bundle compliance (35.3% versus 0%), and also antibiotic stewardship (100% versus 58.6%) (all p < 0.05). Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was available 24 h a day in 94.2% of hospitals. Surgical source control was available 24 h a day in 92.7% of hospitals. Source control by interventional radiology was available in 34.5% of hospitals. Point-of-care lactate testing was available in 80% of emergency departments. Hospital guidelines for antimicrobial therapy in patients with sepsis were present in 65.5% of hospitals.
conclusionsOur study provides a country‑level baseline assessment of sepsis care in hospitals. Overall, adherence to established guidelines for sepsis recognition and management remains low and demands urgent improvement. Hospitals that implemented quality improvement programs demonstrated significantly higher compliance with these guidelines. Strengthening institutional support, establishing structured sepsis programs, and adopting systematic quality improvement approaches are essential to advancing sepsis care.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05059808.
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.