Sepsis Diagnosis With Telemedicine: A Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30953/thmt.v11.726Keywords:
diagnosis, telehealth, telemedicine, sepsisAbstract
Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition requiring early recognition to reduce morbidity and mortality. As telemedicine continues to grow as a mode of healthcare delivery, understanding its role in sepsis diagnosis is becoming increasingly important. However, evidence relating to sepsis diagnosis in the virtual space is limited across the literature. This scoping review aims to explore and synthesise the available evidence on factors inherent to telemedicine consultations that may influence sepsis diagnosis.
Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for peer-reviewed publications of any study design, published in English and after 2000. Our inclusion criteria included patients of any age, assessed via any telemedicine modality and subsequently diagnosed with sepsis. The settings included were primary care and emergency care. Data were extracted into tabular and narrative formats.
Results: A total of eight studies were included, demonstrating considerable heterogeneity in study design, telemedicine modality and setting. Several consistent themes that influenced virtual sepsis diagnosis emerged across the included studies. Patient factors included vague and non-specific symptom presentations, recognition of acute deterioration and the presence of risk factors. Clinician factors included provider experience, provider type, diagnostic uncertainty and history-taking practices. Consultation factors included the telemedicine modality, consultation duration and limited capacity to perform physical examination.
Conclusions: Telemedicine may play a complementary and synergistic role in the sepsis diagnosis pathway, however, it may be amplifying existing diagnostic challenges. Integration of multiple clinical indicators, help-seeking behaviours and appropriate escalation are likely to support sepsis diagnosis and enhance patient safety in virtual care. Future research should focus on evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of telemedicine for sepsis diagnosis and the development of a telemedicine-specific sepsis screening tool.
Downloads
References
1. Cherian J, Segal J, Sharma R, Zhang A, Bass E, Rosen M. Patient Safety Practices Focused on Sepsis Prediction and Recognition: Rapid Review. Making Healthcare Safer IV: A Continuous Updating of Patient Safety Harms and Practices. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2023.
2. van Staa TP, Pate A, Martin GP, Sharma A, Dark P, Felton T, et al. Sepsis and case fatality rates and associations with deprivation, ethnicity, and clinical characteristics: population-based case–control study with linked primary care and hospital data in England. Infection. 2024;52(4):1469-79. doi:10.1007/s15010-024-02235-8
3. Abels W, Reinhart K, Neugebauer E, Wulkotte E, Toubekis E, Piedmont S, et al. Improving prevention and early detection of sepsis among patient groups at risk: Introducing a model for a multimodal information campaign—The SepWiss study protocol. Plos One. 2024;19(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305107
4. Dhaliwal JK, Hall TD, LaRue JL, Maynard SE, Pierre PE, Bransby KA. Expansion of telehealth in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and barriers. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 2022;34(2):224-9. doi:10.1097/jxx.0000000000000626
5. Colburn DA. The Impact of Telehealth Expansion on Health Care Utilization, Access, and Outcomes During the Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2024;30(5):1401-10. doi:10.1089/tmj.2023.0440
6. Coombes CE, Gregory ME. The Current and Future Use of Telemedicine in Infectious Diseases Practice. Current Infectious Disease Reports. 2019;21(11). doi:10.1007/s11908-019-0697-2
7. Talevski J, Semciw AI, Boyd JH, Jessup RL, Miller SM, Hutton J, et al. From concept to reality: A comprehensive exploration into the development and evolution of a virtual emergency department. JACEP Open. 2024;5(4). doi:10.1002/emp2.13231
8. Bokolo A. Use of Telemedicine and Virtual Care for Remote Treatment in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Medical Systems. 2020;44(7). doi:10.1007/s10916-020-01596-5
9. Loots FJ, Smulders D, Giesen P, Hopstaken RM, Smits M. Vital signs of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome in adult patients with acute infections presenting in out-of-hours primary care: A cross-sectional study. European Journal of General Practice. 2021;27(1):83-9. doi:10.1080/13814788.2021.1917544
10. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, Rea TD, Scherag A, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis. Jama. 2016;315(8). doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288
11. Osman S, Churruca K, Ellis LA, Luo D, Braithwaite J. The Unintended Consequences of Telehealth in Australia: Critical Interpretive Synthesis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26. doi:10.2196/57848
12. Lathan R, Sidapra M, Yiasemidou M, Long J, Totty J, Smith G, Chetter I. Diagnostic accuracy of telemedicine for detection of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. npj Digital Medicine. 2022;5(1). doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00655-0
13. McCleery J, Laverty J, Quinn TJ. Diagnostic test accuracy of telehealth assessment for dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021;2021(7). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013786.pub2
14. Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, Sokol S, Pettit N, Howell MD, Edelson DP. Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, and Early Warning Scores for Detecting Clinical Deterioration in Infected Patients outside the Intensive Care Unit. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2017;195(7):906-11. doi:10.1164/rccm.201604-0854OC
15. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2119-26. doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167
16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467-73. doi:10.7326/m18-0850
17. Blozik E, Wildeisen IE, Fueglistaler P, von Overbeck J. Telemedicine can help to ensure that patients receive timely medical care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2011;18(2):119-21. doi:10.1258/jtt.2011.110812
18. Chandrakanthan C, Ritsema TS. Sore throat or severe threat? The teleconsultation that uncovered neutropenic sepsis. Jaapa. 2025;38(3):e2-e5. doi:10.1097/01.Jaa.0000000000000175
19. Cecil E, Bottle A, Majeed A, Aylin P. Factors associated with potentially missed acute deterioration in primary care: cohort study of UK general practices. British Journal of General Practice. 2021;71(708):e547-e54. doi:10.3399/bjgp.2020.0986
20. Kaldjian AM, Vakkalanka P, Okoro U, Wymore C, Harland KK, Campbell K, et al. The Effect of Sepsis Recognition on Telemedicine Use in Rural Emergency Department Sepsis Treatment. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2025;31(7):848-57. doi:10.1089/tmj.2024.0281
21. Mohr NM, Okoro U, Harland KK, Fuller BM, Campbell K, Swanson MB, et al. Outcomes Associated With Rural Emergency Department Provider-to-Provider Telehealth for Sepsis Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2023;81(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.07.024
22. Bohm K, Kurland L, Bartholdson S, Castrèn M. Descriptions and presentations of sepsis – A qualitative content analysis of emergency calls. International Emergency Nursing. 2015;23(4):294-8. doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2015.04.003
23. Mohr NM, Merchant KAS, Fuller BM, Faine B, Mack L, Bell A, et al. The role of telehealth in sepsis care in rural emergency departments: A qualitative study of emergency department sepsis telehealth user perspectives. PLOS One. 2025;20(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321299
24. Stassen W, Larsson E, Wood C, Kurland L. Telephonic description of sepsis among callers to an emergency dispatch centre in South Africa. African Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020;10(2):64-7. doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2020.01.002
25. Wattanapaiboon K, Banditlertruk S, Vattanavanit V. Presenting Symptoms in Sepsis: Is the Mnemonic “SEPSIS” Useful? Infection and Drug Resistance. 2020;Volume 13:2199-204. doi:10.2147/idr.S263964
26. Liu VX, Bhimarao M, Greene JD, Manickam RN, Martinez A, Schuler A, et al. The Presentation, Pace, and Profile of Infection and Sepsis Patients Hospitalized Through the Emergency Department: An Exploratory Analysis. Critical Care Explorations. 2021;3(3). doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000344
27. Pillay-van Wyk V, Msemburi W, Laubscher R, Dorrington RE, Groenewald P, Glass T, et al. Mortality trends and differentials in South Africa from 1997 to 2012: second National Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health. 2016;4(9):e642-e53. doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(16)30113-9
28. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Medicine. 2021;47(11):1181-247. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
29. Peterson MC, Holbrook JM, Hales DV, Smith NL, Staker LV. Contributions of the History, Physical Examination, and Laboratory Investigation in Making Medical Diagnoses. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 1992;47(10):711-2. doi:10.1097/00006254-199210000-00013
30. Nguyen AD, White SJ, Tse T, Cartmill JA, Roger P, Hatem S, Willcock SM. Communication during telemedicine consultations in general practice: perspectives from general practitioners and their patients. BMC Primary Care. 2024;25(1). doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02576-1
31. Verma N, Buch B, Pandya RS, Taralekar R, Masand I, Rangparia H, et al. Evaluation and significance of a digital assistant for patient history-taking and physical examination in telemedicine. Oxford Open Digital Health. 2024;2. doi:10.1093/oodh/oqae008
32. 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). doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287
33. Huibers L, Smits M, Renaud V, Giesen P, Wensing M. Safety of telephone triage in out-of-hours care: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. 2011;29(4):198-209. doi:10.3109/02813432.2011.629150
34. Car J, Sheikh A. Telephone consultations. Bmj. 2003;326(7396):966-9. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7396.966
35. Stevens S, Bankhead C, Mukhtar T, Perera-Salazar R, Holt TA, Salisbury C, Hobbs FDR. Patient-level and practice-level factors associated with consultation duration: a cross-sectional analysis of over one million consultations in English primary care. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018261
36. Greenhalgh T, Morrison C, Koh Choon Huat G. Video consultations: a guide for practice. BJGP. 2020.
37. Donaghy E, Atherton H, Hammersley V, McNeilly H, Bikker A, Robbins L, et al. Acceptability, benefits, and challenges of video consulting: a qualitative study in primary care. British Journal of General Practice. 2019;69(686):e586-e94. doi:10.3399/bjgp19X704141
38. Morony S, Weir K, Duncan G, Biggs J, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. Enhancing communication skills for telehealth: development and implementation of a Teach-Back intervention for a national maternal and child health helpline in Australia. BMC Health Services Research. 2018;18(1). doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2956-6
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bethany S. Hansen, BBiomedSc, James H. Boyd, BSc (Hons), PhD, Jennifer Hutton, MBChB, MPH, FACEM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to Telehealth and Medicine Today (THMT).
THMT is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
