Evidence Hub

Sepsis Recognition and Management Gaps in Hospitals: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Subset of Data from the European Sepsis Care Survey

Śmiechowicz J, Scheer CS, Bartczak J, Bartkowska-Śniatkowska A, Baścik K, Czaban SL, Czempik PF, Dąbrowski W et al.

Infectious diseases and therapy, 2026

Abstract

Introduction: Sepsis 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.

Methods: Data 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).

Results: Sepsis-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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free