Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Assessing variation in neonatal sepsis screening across England
  1. Hannah L Moore1,
  2. Cheryl Battersby2,
  3. Chinthika Piyasena3,
  4. Alicia Demirjian4,5,
  5. Theresa Lamagni4
  1. 1 UK Field Epidemiology Training Program, UK Health Security Agency, Leeds, UK
  2. 2 Neonatal Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK
  3. 3 Neonatal Unit, Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4 HCAI, Fungal, AMR, AMU and Sepsis Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
  5. 5 Neonatal Medicine, Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Theresa Lamagni, HCAI, Fungal, AMR, AMU and Sepsis Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, NW9 5EQ, UK; theresa.lamagni{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Early-onset neonatal sepsis (EOS) is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Current screening for clinical signs of sepsis in England typically involves one of two approaches: guidelines issued by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) or a risk-based tool developed in the USA, the Kaiser Permanente Sepsis Risk Calculator (KP SRC). An update to the 2012 NICE guidelines in April 2021 permitted the alternative use of the KP SRC with prospective audit.1 The application of the KP SRC has been consistently shown to reduce antibiotic usage2 3; however, uncertainty exists among clinicians as to whether this comes at the expense of increasing numbers of missed EOS cases. As such, benefits in reducing unnecessary treatment must be considered against potential undertreatment. Differences among National Health Service neonatal units in England arising from the coexistence of the two clinical screening …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @DrCBattersby, @chinthikap

  • Contributors HLM designed the survey. HLM and TL wrote the manuscript and CB, AD and CP were responsible for dissemination of the survey. AD, CB and CP provided feedback on the manuscript and TL was responsible for supervision of the project as a whole.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.