Abstract
Abstract
Purpose of Review
Sepsis remains one of the greatest global healthcare burdens, with an estimated greater mortality rate from sepsis in Africa. The increasing global financial, social, and political strain of the twenty-first century has created new challenges when trying to tackle this problem. We aim to compare the differences in the management of sepsis in three countries (Australia, the UK, and South Africa) that face distinctly different challenges.
Recent Findings
The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines attempted to provide a good standard of care with bundles to help initiate early appropriate treatment. These bundles of care appear to improve outcomes when implemented early; however, data from Africa is lacking. There are several barriers to the implementation of guidelines, and resource-limited environments face additional challenges of staff shortages, lack of equipment and medication, and clinical pressure with increased strain capacity.
Summary
Australia, the UK, and South Africa have both shared and different obstacles when addressing the burden of sepsis. Solutions for the African environment may differ from more well-resourced environments, and global cooperation and innovation will be necessary to tackle sepsis across these continents. There is an urgent need for data from the African continent to understand the burden of sepsis and to help plan and strategize potential solutions.
Funder
University of KwaZulu-Natal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference81 articles.
1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.
2. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1736–88.
3. Adhikari NK, Fowler RA, Bhagwanjee S, Rubenfeld GD. Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1339–46.
4. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NK, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259–72.
5. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford BA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200–11 This study demonstrates the significance of sepsis on a global scale, as it accounts for almost 20% of global deaths. The incidence of sepsis varied according to different geographical areas, with the highest burden in Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and areas of Southeast Asia.undefined.