Bacteremia is most commonly diagnosed by blood culture, in which a sample of blood drawn from the vein by needle puncture is allowed to incubate with a medium that promotes bacterial growth. If bacteria are present in the bloodstream at the time the sample is obtained, the bacteria will multiply and can thereby be detected.

Any bacteria that incidentally find their way to the culture medium will also multiply. For example, if the skin is not adequately cleaned before needle puncture, contamination of the blood sample with normal bacteria that live on the surface of the skin can occur. For this reason, blood cultures must be drawn with great attention to sterile process. The presence of certain bacteria in the blood culture, such as S"taphylococcus aureus", "Streptococcus pneumoniae", and "Escherichia coli" almost never represent a contamination of the sample. On the other hand, contamination may be more highly suspected if organisms like "Staphylococcus epidermidis" or "Propionibacterium acnes" grow in the blood culture.

Two blood cultures drawn from separate sites of the body are often sufficient to diagnose bacteremia. Two out of two cultures growing the same type of bacteria usually represents a real bacteremia, particularly if the organism that grows is not a common contaminant. One out of two positive cultures will usually prompt a repeat set of blood cultures to be drawn to confirm whether a contaminant or a real bacteremia is present. The patient's skin is typically cleaned with an alcohol-based product prior to drawing blood to prevent contamination. Blood cultures may be repeated at intervals to determine if persistent — rather than transient — bacteremia is present.

Prior to drawing blood cultures, a thorough patient history should be taken with particular regard to presence of both fevers and chills, other focal signs of infection such as in the skin or soft tissue, a state of immunosuppression, or any recent invasive procedures.

Ultrasound of the heart is recommended in all those with bacteremia due to "Staphylococcus aureus" to rule out infectious endocarditis.

The presence of bacteria in the blood almost always requires treatment with antibiotics. This is because there are high mortality rates from progression to sepsis if antibiotics are delayed.

The treatment of bacteremia should begin with empiric antibiotic coverage. Any patient presenting with signs or symptoms of bacteremia or a positive blood culture should be started on intravenous antibiotics. The choice of antibiotic is determined by the most likely source of infection and by the characteristic organisms that typically cause that infection. Other important considerations include the patient's past history of antibiotic use, the severity of the presenting symptoms, and any allergies to antibiotics. Empiric antibiotics should be narrowed, preferably to a single antibiotic, once the blood culture returns with a particular bacteria that has been isolated.

A definitive diagnosis is made by culturing the organism from any clinical sample, because the organism is never part of the normal human flora.

A definite history of contact with soil may not be elicited, as melioidosis can be dormant for many years before manifesting. Attention should be paid to a history of travel to endemic areas in returned travellers. Some authors recommend considering possibility of melioidosis in every febrile patient with a history of traveling to and/or staying at endemic areas.

A complete screen (blood culture, sputum culture, urine culture, throat swab, and culture of any aspirated pus) should be performed on all patients with suspected melioidosis (culture on blood agar as well as Ashdown's medium). A definitive diagnosis is made by growing "B. pseudomallei" from any site. A throat swab is not sensitive, but is 100% specific if positive, and compares favourably with sputum culture. The sensitivity of urine culture is increased if a centrifuged specimen is cultured, and any bacterial growth should be reported (not just growth above 10 organisms/ml which is the usual cutoff). Very occasionally, bone marrow culture may be positive in patients who have negative blood cultures for "B. pseudomallei", but these are not usually recommended. A common error made by clinicians unfamiliar with melioidosis is to send a specimen from only the affected site (which is the usual procedure for most other infections) instead of sending a full screen.

Ashdown's medium, a selective medium containing gentamicin, may be required for cultures taken from nonsterile sites. "Burkholderia cepacia" medium may be a useful alternative selective medium in nonendemic areas, where Ashdown's is not available. A new medium derived from Ashdown, known as Francis medium, may help differentiate "B. pseudomallei" from "B. cepacia" and may help in the early diagnosis of melioidosis, but has not yet been extensively clinically validated.

Many commercial kits for identifying bacteria may misidentify "B. pseudomallei" ("see" "Burkholderia pseudomallei" for a more detailed discussion of this topic).

A serological test for melioidosis (indirect haemagglutination) is available, but not commercially in most countries. A high background titre may reduce the positive predictive value of serological tests in endemic countries. A specific direct immunofluorescent test and latex agglutination, based on monoclonal antibodies, are used widely in Thailand, but are not available elsewhere. Cross-reactivity with "B. thailandensis" is almost complete. A commercial ELISA kit for melioidosis appears to perform well. but no ELISA test has yet been clinically validated as a diagnostic tool.

It is not possible to make the diagnosis on imaging studies alone (X-rays and scans), but imaging is routinely performed to assess the full extent of disease. Imaging of the abdomen using CT scans or ultrasound is recommended routinely, as abscesses may not be clinically apparent and may coexist with disease elsewhere. Australian authorities suggest imaging of the prostate specifically due to the high incidence of prostatic abscesses in northern Australian patients. A chest X-ray is also considered routine, with other investigations as clinically indicated. The presence of honeycomb abscesses in the liver is considered characteristic, but is not diagnostic.

The differential diagnosis is extensive; melioidosis may mimic many other infections, including tuberculosis.

Person-to-person transmission is exceedingly unusual; and patients with melioidosis should not be considered contagious. Lab workers should handle "B. pseudomallei" under BSL-3 isolation conditions, as laboratory-acquired melioidosis has been described.

In endemic areas, people (rice-paddy farmers in particular) are warned to avoid contact with soil, mud, and surface water where possible. Case clusters have been described following flooding and cyclones and probably relate to exposure. Other case clusters have related to contamination of drinking water supplies. Populations at risk include patients with diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure, chronic lung disease, or an immune deficiency of any kind. The effectiveness of measures to reduce exposure to the causative organism have not been established. A vaccine is not yet available.

The diagnosis of GPS is often difficult, as numerous other diseases can cause the various manifestations of the condition and the condition itself is rare. The most accurate means of achieving the diagnosis is testing the affected tissues by means of a biopsy, especially the kidney, as it is the best-studied organ for obtaining a sample for the presence of anti-GBM antibodies. On top of the anti-GBM antibodies implicated in the disease, about one in three of those affected also has cytoplasmic antineutrophilic antibodies in their bloodstream, which often predates the anti-GBM antibodies by about a few months or even years. The later the disease is diagnosed, the worse the outcome is for the affected person.

With treatment the five-year survival rate is >80% and fewer than 30% of affected individuals require long-term dialysis. A study performed in Australia and New Zealand demonstrated that in patients requiring renal replacement therapy (including dialysis) the median survival time is 5.93 years. Without treatment, virtually every affected person will end up dying from either advanced kidney failure or lung hemorrhages.

Wissler's syndrome (or Wissler's disease or Wissler-Fanconi syndrome) is a rheumatic disease that has a similar presentation to sepsis. It is sometimes considered closely related to Still's disease. It is named for Guido Fanconi and Hans Wissler It was first described by Wissler in 1944 and Fanconi in 1946. Single observations by E. Uhse in 1943 («Febris maculosa intermittens»), Fykow in 1929 and Nowak in 1942.

Children and adolescents are most frequently affected; age in the reported cases varied from 5 to 17 years.

In the ICU, international guidelines recommend that every patient gets checked for delirium every day (usually twice or more a day) using a validated clinical tool. The two most widely used are the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). There are translations of these tools in over 20 languages and they are used globally in many thousands of ICUs, and instructional videos and myriad implementation tips are available. It is not as important which tool is used as that the patient gets monitored. Without using one of these tools, 75% of ICU delirium is missed by the practicing team, which leaves the patient without any likely active interventions to help reduce the duration of his/her delirium.

The most salient component of the definition of delirium that nurses and other healthcare professionals use at the bedside is whether or not the patient can pay attention and follow simple commands (see videos and literature). The advent of daily monitoring for delirium, made easy by the CAM-ICU and other assessment tools, as well as proper documentation, had led to important changes in the culture of ICUs and rounds in that the entire team can now discuss the brain and how it is doing in terms of being “on” (not delirious) or “off” (delirious) and then focus on the several most likely causes of delirium in any specific patient. Thus, it is not the monitoring itself that changes the patient’s clinical course, but rather it is this combination of monitoring and then relaying the information on rounds in the ICU that makes such a huge difference in awareness of this form of organ dysfunction and then enables a difference to be made in clinical outcomes.

Multiple guidelines recommend that delirium should be diagnosed when it presents to healthcare services. Much evidence suggest, however, that delirium is greatly underdiagnosed. Higher rates of detection of delirium in general settings (for the ICU see below) can be assisted by the use of validated delirium screening tools. Many such tools have been published. They differ in duration, complexity, need for training, and so on. Examples of tools in use in clinical practice are: Delirium Observation Screening Scale, the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), the Confusion Assessment Method, the Recognizing Acute Delirium As part of your Routine (RADAR) tool and the 4 "A"s Test or 4AT.