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
Review
. 2026 Feb 15.
doi: 10.1002/jhm.70284. Online ahead of print.

Impact of manual sepsis screening in hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review

Rachel K Hechtman  1 , Natasha Garamani  1 , Yezen R Anabtawi  2 , Amanda G Rivas  1 , Bailey Antonowicz  1 , Anna K Barker  1 , Tami Garcia  1 , Rosalie Mulcahy  1 , Patricia J Posa  1 , Michael W Sjoding  1 , Hallie C Prescott  1   3
Affiliations
Review

Impact of manual sepsis screening in hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review

Rachel K Hechtman et al. J Hosp Med. .

Abstract

Background: Manual sepsis screening, which includes bedside clinical assessment, is widely used in emergency departments and hospital wards and may improve early recognition and treatment.

Objectives: To synthesize evidence on the impact of manual sepsis screening on sepsis-related processes of care and mortality.

Methods: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL for original research published between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2024. Search terms addressed sepsis, screening, and hospital settings (emergency department, ward, intensive care unit). We included full-text studies evaluating the impact of manual screening on sepsis-related processes of care or mortality. Two reviewers screened studies, and risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

Results: Of 10,469 studies identified, 17 met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in nine countries; most were single-center (n = 15), used pre-post designs (n = 15), and were conducted before 2016 (n = 11). Seven of 10 studies reported improvement in at least one process-of-care outcome after implementation. Six of 13 studies reported statistically significant mortality reductions; three additional studies reported ≥5% absolute mortality improvement without statistical testing or significance. Overall conclusions were limited by high risk of bias, primarily due to confounding.

Conclusions: Evidence supporting manual sepsis screening is low quality and may be outdated given evolving sepsis recognition and care. Rigorous contemporary studies are needed to guide adoption and implementation decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Peltan ID, Brown SM, Bledsoe JR, et al. ED door‐to‐antibiotic time and long‐term mortality in sepsis. Chest. 2019;155(5):938‐946. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.02.008
    1. Rhee C, Jones TM, Hamad Y, et al. Prevalence, underlying causes, and preventability of sepsis‐associated mortality in US acute care hospitals. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(2):e187571. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7571
    1. Liu V, Escobar GJ, Greene JD, et al. Hospital deaths in patients with sepsis from 2 independent cohorts. JAMA. 2014;312(1):90. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5804
    1. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063‐e1143. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005337
    1. De Backer D, Deutschman CS, Hellman J, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign research priorities 2023. Crit Care Med. 2024;52(2):268‐296. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006135

LinkOut - more resources