Participants described sepsis recovery as an extended, demanding process involving persistent physical weakness, cognitive difficulties and psychological symptoms. Survivors reported ongoing limitations that affected mobility, stamina and daily activities; cognitive complaints and emotional distress were frequently described alongside physical problems. The study frames recovery not as an acute event but as a prolonged journey of rebuilding across multiple domains.
Many participants reported fragmented services and poor integration of care after hospital discharge. Information about what to expect during recovery was often limited, and respondents described uncertainty about where to seek follow-up support. Rather than a coherent pathway, care after sepsis tended to be experienced as disparate contacts with different services and professionals, leaving some people without clear access to rehabilitation or community-based support.
Continuity of post-sepsis support varied widely. Several participants described valuable, ongoing support from individual healthcare professionals who provided guidance and continuity. However, this was not consistent across the sample; for many, continuing care depended on individual providers rather than on organised, dependable services. The study highlights how the presence or absence of a single supportive clinician could substantially influence patient and family experiences of recovery.
The longer-term consequences of sepsis extended beyond the individual to affect family members and everyday functioning. Participants described shifts in family responsibilities, with carers taking on new or expanded roles. Employment and work participation were frequently disrupted, and everyday activities required adaptation. These social and practical consequences were described as substantial and enduring, reshaping household dynamics and economic participation.
Across interviews, participants suggested that recovery would benefit from a more coordinated approach. They recommended clearer information about expected recovery trajectories, accessible follow-up services and better integration between hospital, primary care and community services. The findings point to the need for systems that recognise longer-term needs after sepsis and provide structured, navigable pathways for survivors and families.
This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 21 participants: 14 people who had experienced sepsis and seven family members. Participants were recruited via professional networks and a sepsis charity organisation in Ireland. Interviews were conducted remotely by telephone or Zoom between May and June 2026, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes describing participants’ lived experiences, care encounters and perceived needs.
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University College Dublin Human Research Ethics Committee (LS-26-08-Ravichandran-Cullen), and the authors report that informed consent was obtained from participants. The qualitative interview data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions; the study team notes that the transcripts contain detailed personal accounts and that sharing could compromise confidentiality. Access to underlying data may be considered on reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to ethical, privacy and consent requirements.
The authors conclude that people with a history of sepsis and their families in this sample described substantial and ongoing consequences and variable experiences of longer-term care. The findings underscore the need to better recognise and respond to longer-term health needs following sepsis and to develop coordinated, accessible approaches to ongoing support in Ireland. As reported on medRxiv, this manuscript is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed; the authors and journal explicitly note that the research should not yet be used to guide clinical practice. Details such as sample demographic characteristics, timelines for individual recovery, and specific proposed service models were not reported in the abstract and main summary provided here.
Recovery after sepsis often involves persistent multi-domain symptoms that extend well beyond hospital discharge.
Post-discharge care was experienced as fragmented; survivors and families reported uncertainty about where to seek ongoing support.
Continuity of care frequently depended on individual clinicians rather than coordinated services, producing variable experiences.
The social impact of sepsis includes altered family roles and disrupted employment, highlighting the importance of holistic recovery planning.
Participants advocated for clearer information, integrated care pathways and accessible community-based support to address post-sepsis needs.
Note: All findings, methods and conclusions in this summary derive from the medRxiv preprint report of this qualitative study. The preprint has not been peer reviewed; specific numerical details beyond those reported in the source (for example, participant demographics or exact recovery timelines) were not provided in the available text and therefore are not included here.