Use of sepsis-related diagnostic criteria in primary care: a survey among general practitioners

Abstract

Background Use of sepsis-criteria in hospital settings is effective in realizing early recognition, adequate treatment and reduction of sepsis-associated morbidity and mortality. Whether general practitioners (GPs) use these diagnostic criteria is unknown. Objective To gauge the knowledge and use of various diagnostic criteria. To determine which parameters GPs associate with an increased likelihood of sepsis. Methods Two thousand five hundred and sixty GPs were invited and 229 agreed to participate in a survey, reached out to through e-mail and WhatsApp groups. The survey consisted of two parts: the first part aimed to obtain information about the GP, training and knowledge about sepsis recognition, and the second part tested specific knowledge using six realistic cases. Results Two hundred and six questionnaires, representing a response rate of 8.1%, were eligible for analysis. Gut feeling (98.1%) was the most used diagnostic method, while systemic inflammatory response syndrome (37.9%), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) (7.8%) and UK Sepsis Trust criteria (UKSTc) (1.5%) were used by the minority of the GPs. Few of the responding GPs had heard of either the qSOFA (27.7%) or the UKSTc (11.7%). Recognition of sepsis varied greatly between GPs. GPs most strongly associated the individual signs of the qSOFA (mental status, systolic blood pressure, capillary refill time and respiratory rate) with diagnosing sepsis in the test cases. Conclusions GPs mostly use gut feeling to diagnose sepsis and are frequently not familiar with the ‘sepsis-criteria’ used in hospital settings, although clinical reasoning was mostly in line with the qSOFA score. In order to improve sepsis recognition in primary care, GPs should be educated in the use of available screening tools.

Vital signs, clinical rules, and gut feeling: an observational study among patients with fever

“…In a recent survey, GPs’ knowledge of the SIRS criteria was substantially higher than of the qSOFA. 20 It is therefore somewhat surprising that the majority (66.7%) of patients who were admitted to the hospital within 7 days after the inital GPC visit had a positive SIRS score using the vital signs initially measured by the GP (see Supplementary Table S2). This shows that positive SIRS scores do not automatically trigger a specific assessment or treatment protocol.…”

Knowledge assessment of Sepsis Diagnosis and Management during COVID-19 pandemic among House Officers & Medical Officers in Ibrahim Malik Teaching Hospital in Khartoum State, Sudan, 2021

“…Even though 55% of the participants received training upon Sepsis, the results showed no signi cant difference between the trained and the non-trained nor the clinical experience between House o cers and Medical o cers whereas the overall median score knowledge to the trained participants is 6 in similar to the score of 5 to the non-trained participants in similar to a study done by Michael Courtney, Bussa Gopinath, invited and 229 agreed to participate in a survey, reached out to through e-mail and WhatsApp groups. And mainly the results showed that few of the responding GPs had heard of the qSOFA (27.7%) [11]. This clear lack of knowledge of qSOFA criteria and its importance in early septic patients' assessment is most likely manifested in poor training in both college and hospital settings.In my study regarding the participants' knowledge upon the main difference between SIRS and Sepsis is that 30% of participants know that the only difference between systemic in ammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis is presence of infection.…”

Improving sepsis recognition through use of the Sepsis Trust's community screening tool

“…It is recommended that all clinical areas employ a sepsis screening tool to facilitate earlier identification of sepsis risk (Mulders et al, 2021). The tool is simple to follow and encourages the clinician to ask four questions to help elicit pertinent information from a patient history and physical assessment.…”