Critical care nurses' knowledge, confidence, and clinical reasoning in sepsis management: a systematic review

Sepsis is a critical condition with high global mortality, accounting for 11 million deaths annually. Nurses are central to sepsis management, and their knowledge, confidence, and clinical reasoning significantly impact patient outcomes.

This systematic review evaluates critical care nurses' knowledge, confidence, and clinical reasoning in sepsis management and examines factors influencing these competencies.

A comprehensive search of PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted, covering studies published from 2014 to 2023. Studies were included if they assessed knowledge, confidence, or clinical reasoning in sepsis management among critical care nurses using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches in clinical settings. Only peer-reviewed studies were considered to ensure academic rigor. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Checklist for quantitative studies and the CASP tool for qualitative studies, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. A total of 70 records were screened, with 25 studies (sample sizes ranging from 28 to 835 nurses) meeting the inclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on study design, tools used, and key outcomes related to knowledge, confidence, and clinical reasoning in sepsis management.

Across 25 studies involving over 5,000 nurses globally, knowledge scores were moderate, with significant gaps in early sepsis recognition (e.g., only 52% of nurses could define sepsis). In three studies, confidence improved with sepsis-specific training, showing a 10-25% increase post-intervention. Clinical reasoning was influenced by organizational factors, experience, and the use of technology, with decision-support tools enhancing timely sepsis recognition and reducing mortality by up to 23%.

This review provides a global perspective on sepsis management among critical care nurses, strengthened by diverse study designs. However, limitations include variability in measurement tools, self-reporting bias, small sample sizes, and language-based selection bias. Continuous education, targeted training, and the integration of AI-driven decision tools are essential to improving sepsis outcomes. Addressing gaps in sepsis knowledge and promoting better clinical reasoning will enhance the overall quality of care in critical settings.