OBJECTIVES: Sepsis awareness and understanding are important aspects of prevention, recognition, and clinical management of sepsis. We conducted a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to sepsis awareness, general knowledge, and information-seeking behaviors with a goal to inform future sepsis research and knowledge translation campaigns. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a systematic search on May 3, 2021, across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete). Title/abstract and full-text screening was done in duplicate. One researcher extracted the data for each included article, and a second researcher checked data accuracy. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YX7AU). SUBJECTS: Articles related to sepsis awareness, knowledge, and information seeking behaviors among patients, public, and healthcare professionals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 5,927 unique studies, 80 reported on patient (n = 13/80;16.3%), public (n = 15/80;18.8%), or healthcare professional (nurses, physicians, emergency medical technicians) (n = 48/80; 60%) awareness and knowledge of sepsis. Healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis is high compared with patients/public. The proportion of patients/public who had heard of the term sepsis ranged from 2% (Japan) to 88.6% (Germany). The proportions of patients/public who correctly identified the definition of sepsis ranged from 4.2% (Singapore) to 92% (Sweden). The results from the included studies appear to suggest that patient/public awareness of sepsis gradually improved over time. We found that the definition of sepsis was inconsistent in the literature and that few studies reported on patient, public, or healthcare professional knowledge of sepsis risk factors. Most patient/public get their sepsis information from the internet, whereas healthcare professionals get it from their role in healthcare through job training or educational training. CONCLUSIONS: Patient, public, and healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis vary globally. Future research may benefit from a consistent definition as well as country-specific data to support targeted public awareness campaigns.

Clinical question What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020. Current practice Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice. Recommendations The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir. How this guideline was created An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems. The evidence The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay. Understanding the recommendation Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.