Search

Background: Sepsis is a common cause of death throughout the world. Early treatment improves outcome; however, treatment may be delayed if the patient does not present himself/herself for medical care until late in the disease process. Lack of knowledge about the syndrome may contribute to delay in presenting for medical care. However, we need to acknowledge the complexity of sepsis. General awareness of sepsis by the public may increase political pressure for research funding. Increased public awareness of acute myocardial infarction has contributed to reduced mortality over the last 50 yrs. This example provides a rationale for future efforts to increase the public awareness of sepsis., Objective: The survey was designed to gain insight into public perceptions and attitudes regarding sepsis., Design: Prospective, international survey performed using structured telephone interviews., Subjects: A total of 6021 interviewees, 5021 in Europe and 1000 in the United States., Measurements and Main Results: In Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, France and the United States, a mean of 88% of interviewees had never heard of the term "sepsis". In Germany 53% of people knew the word sepsis. In Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, France, and United States, of people who recognized the term sepsis, 58% did not recognize that sepsis is a leading cause of death., Conclusions: There is poor public awareness about the existence of a syndrome known as sepsis. Results of this questionnaire underscore the challenges in early management and treatment of infected patients at risk for developing sepsis syndrome.

Background: To be able to diagnose and treat sepsis better it is important not only to improve the knowledge about definitions and pathophysiology, but also to gain more insight into specialists' perception of, and attitude towards, the current diagnosis and treatment of sepsis., Methods: The study was conducted as a prospective, international survey by structured telephone interview. The subjects were intensive care physicians and other specialist physicians caring for intensive care unit (ICU) patients., Results: The 1058 physicians who were interviewed (including 529 intensivists) agreed that sepsis is a leading cause of death on the ICU and that the incidence of sepsis is increasing, but that the symptoms of sepsis can easily be misattributed to other conditions. Physicians were concerned that this could lead to under-reporting of sepsis. Two-thirds (67%) were concerned that a common definition is lacking and 83% said it is likely that sepsis is frequently missed. Not more than 17% agreed on any one definition., Conclusion: There is a general awareness about the inadequacy of the current definitions of sepsis. Physicians caring for patients with sepsis recognise the difficulty of defining and diagnosing sepsis and are aware that they miss the diagnosis frequently.

Objective: To describe current arrangements for postgraduate training and speciality status for intensive care medicine in Europe, and to compare these with three other geographical regions: the Middle East, North America, and Australia and New Zealand., Methods: An iterative survey, by questionnaire and direct discussion, of council members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, national specialist societies with involvement in intensive care, and national experts, representing four geographical regions and 47 countries., Results: For the purposes of analysis, countries with common training structures have been grouped together; the denominator therefore includes both countries and regions. Formal training programmes in intensive care medicine (ICM) are available in 18 (85%) of the 21 countries or regions surveyed. Twelve (57%) offer multidisciplinary access to intensive care training with a common core curriculum. In six (28%) training in ICM is available solely through anaesthesia. The duration of intensive care training required for recognition as a specialist in the 18 countries or regions with a formal programme ranges from 18 to 30 months, with a median of 24 months. All countries assess competence in intensive care, but methods for doing so vary widely. Eighteen countries or regions offer specialist registration (accreditation) in ICM; in 12 this is provided as dual accreditation in a base speciality and in ICM., Conclusions: There is substantial support for multidisciplinary training in ICM, as demonstrated by collaborative interspeciality developments in many countries. We propose that these national developments should be strengthened within Europe by the recognition of 'supra-speciality' status for ICM by the European Commission, and by the establishment of a multidisciplinary Board for training in ICM, with international agreement on core competencies and duration of training programmes, and a common approach to the assessment of competence through formal examination.