Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 3;16(6):e61612.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.61612. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Recognition and Awareness of Sepsis by First-Aid Providers in Adults With Suspected Infection: A Scoping Review

Affiliations

Recognition and Awareness of Sepsis by First-Aid Providers in Adults With Suspected Infection: A Scoping Review

Amy Kule et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Sepsis accounts for a significant proportion of preventable deaths worldwide and early treatment has been found to be a mainstay of decreasing mortality. Early identification of sepsis in the first-aid setting is critical as this results in a shorter time to hospital presentation and management with antibiotics and initial resuscitation. Our aim was to explore the existing literature related to either sepsis recognition or awareness of sepsis by first-aid providers who are evaluating an adult suspected of an acute infection. Our scoping review was performed as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's (ILCOR) continuous evidence evaluation process to update the 2024 ILCOR Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations. We searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from their inception to January 17, 2023, with updated searches performed on November 21, 2023, and December 2, 2023. The gray literature search was conducted on August 29, 2023. The population included adults presenting with an acute illness exhibiting signs and symptoms of a severe infection. Outcomes included sepsis recognition or awareness of sepsis by a lay first-aid provider. After reviewing 4380 potential sources, four reviews (three systematic reviews and one scoping review), 11 observational studies, and 27 websites met the inclusion criteria. No study directly addressed our PICOST (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Study Design, and Timeframe) question as none were performed in the first-aid setting. Three systematic reviews and nine observational studies that assessed the ability of early warning scores to detect sepsis and predict adverse outcomes secondary to sepsis had inconsistent results, but many found the screening tools to be useful. One scoping review and one observational study found public knowledge and awareness of sepsis to be variable and dependent upon healthcare employment, location, education level, ethnicity, sex, and age. Signs and symptoms associated with sepsis as listed by gray literature sources fell primarily under nine general categories as a means of educating the public on sepsis recognition. Although this scoping review did not identify any studies that directly addressed our outcomes, it highlights the need for future research to better understand the recognition of sepsis in first-aid settings.

Keywords: first aid; identification; illness; infection; lay provider; recognition; sepsis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA Diagram of Included Studies
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Similar articles

References

    1. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hospital-related costs of sepsis around the world: a systematic review exploring the economic burden of sepsis. van den Berg M, van Beuningen FE, Ter Maaten JC, Bouma HR. J Crit Care. 2022;71:154096. - PubMed
    1. The global epidemiology of sepsis. Does it matter that we know so little? Finfer S, Machado FR. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193:228–230. - PubMed
    1. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NK, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193:259–272. - PubMed
    1. Reducing the global burden of sepsis. Dugani S, Veillard J, Kissoon N. CMAJ. 2017;189:0–3. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources