Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Healthcare Workers Regarding Sepsis in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Rattachement africain : République démocratique du Congo, Côte d’Ivoire. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Optimizing sepsis management and developing training programs for healthcare workers depend on identifying areas for improvement. This study assesses the interrelationship between healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding sepsis in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Results: The study involved 179 healthcare workers, with 169 completing a questionnaire. The majority were physicians (83.43%) with a male predominance (79.29%). Physicians under 40 years old represented 53.85%, while most nurses were women (83.29%), aged 40 to 50 years (81.71%) with more than 10 years of experience (42.86%). Most worked in public hospitals (55.32%). Although 81% of physicians and 52% of nurses reported knowing the definition of sepsis, only 34% of physicians correctly identified it, with none of the nurses doing so. Regarding diagnosis, 49% of physicians mentioned CRP as a key marker, and 61% used the infection-SIRS association, compared to 29% of nurses. Only 26.42% of physicians knew that tachycardia was not part of the qSOFA score. The results revealed that 46.60% of respondents had low knowledge, 37.46% had moderate knowledge, and only 15.94% had good knowledge. Physicians had slightly better knowledge than nurses (p Conclusion: This study highlights the urgent need for comprehensive training on sepsis and standardized care strategies (SSC) in DRC.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Healthcare Workers Regarding Sepsis in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2025
- Éditeur
- Scientific Research Publishing, Inc.
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.