Sepsis is back making headlines for all the wrong reasons. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has criticised a Surrey hospital for the 2 hour delay in diagnosing sepsis and the 4 hour delay before giving antibiotic treatment. The PHSO stated that failures at the hospital reduced the man's chances of survival. The shocking part of this story is that failure to recognise a septic patient and start antibiotics is a well-recognised lapse in care which occurs with worrying frequency in hospitals across globe.

“Sepsis claims over 37,000 lives in the United Kingdom annually; more than breast cancer and bowel cancer combined”1. Back in 2005 the Surviving Sepsis Campaign attempted to rectify this by raising awareness and improving the management of septic patients with evidence based guidelines. However these guidelines are “delivered in fewer than 1 in 5 [septic] patients in the UK”1.

So could you recognise a patient with sepsis and reel-off an initial management plan? No?

The radio station has been reporting the story of a local lady whose baby sadly died from infection with the Group B Streptococcus. The report argues for a routine national screening program for this bacterium followed by antibiotics in labour for anyone found to be positive. This is similar to the system they have in the USA, and I thought it would be an opportune moment to look again at the evidence for and against the introduction of a screening program in the UK.

Group B Streptococcus is the most common bacterial cause of sepsis in neonates in the UK, affecting 0.4 per 1,000 live births. Sepsis is associated with preterm labour and prolonged rupture of membranes. Between 20% and 40% of women of child bearing age carry the Group B Streptococcus as part of their normal genital flora, and therefore during a normal vaginal delivery the baby is exposed to this bacterium.