ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Best Practices for Optimizing Recovery from Sepsis; Results of an Expert Panel.
Article in Journal of general internal 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver one million patients survive sepsis annually in the USA. After sepsis, patients often experience new morbidity, with high rates of readmission and post-acute mortality. However, there are limited data to inform best practices to support recovery from sepsis.
methodsWe convened an expert panel to rate the validity, importance, and resource intensity of 18 care practices aimed to support recovery from sepsis using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (a modified Delphi approach). The multidisciplinary panel consisted of 15 experts in sepsis, critical care, hospital medicine, primary care, geriatrics, nursing, and quality improvement, as well as Veteran patient representatives. In addition to the panel members' scores of care practices, panel deliberations were used to understand members' selections.
resultsAmong the 18 care practices considered, all received agreement in final grading, 10 (56%) were rated as valid, and eight (44%) were rated as uncertain validity. Among 10 valid practices, five were rated as high importance and only moderately resource-intensive-suggesting they should be prioritized for implementation. The high-importance, moderate resource-intensity practices were as follows: scheduling recommended follow-up prior to discharge; screening for limitations in basic and instrumental activities of daily living (I/ADLs) and need for durable medical equipment (DME); educating patients on signs and symptoms of sepsis; educating patients on common symptoms after sepsis (e.g., fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog); and counseling patients and/or caregivers on discharge medications and their indications. Study limitations include the panel composition (majority VHA clinicians, no social work representation), which may have impacted ratings.
conclusionsThe expert panel used a validated method to prioritize care practices for supporting recovery from sepsis. These ratings can be used to improve management, inform quality improvement efforts, and guide resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888340What 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.