Article Data

  • Views 465
  • Dowloads 151

Original Research

Open Access Special Issue

Use of quick sequential organ failure assessment score-based sepsis clinical decision support system may be helpful to predict sepsis development

  • Youn-Jung Kim1
  • Jae-Ho Lee1,2
  • Sang-Wook Lee3
  • Won Young Kim1

1Department of Emergency Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 05505 Seoul, Republic of Korea

2Department of Information Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 05505 Seoul, Republic of Korea

3Medical Information Office, Asan Medical Center, 05505 Seoul, Republic of Korea

DOI: 10.22514/sv.2021.082 Vol.17,Issue 5,September 2021 pp.86-94

Submitted: 22 February 2021 Accepted: 15 March 2021

Published: 08 September 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Jae-Ho Lee E-mail:


Objectives: A sepsis clinical decision support system (CDSS) can facilitate quicker sepsis detection and treatment and consequently improve outcomes. We developed a qSOFA-based sepsis CDSS and evaluated its impact on compliance with a 3-hour resuscitation bundle for patients with sepsis.

Methods: This before-and-after study included consecutive adult patients with suspected infection and qSOFA scores of ≥ 2 at their emergency department (ED) presentation of a tertiary care hospital. Sepsis was defined according to the Sepsis-3 criteria. We evaluated the 3-hour resuscitation bundle compliance rate for control patients from July through August 2016, for patients using the qSOFA-based sepsis CDSS from September through December 2016, and the impact of the system using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results: Of 306 patients with suspected infection and positive qSOFA scores at presentation, 265 patients (86.6%) developed sepsis (including 71 patients with septic shock). The 3-hour resuscitation bundle compliance rate did not differ significantly between the patients before and after the routine implementation of the qSOFA-based sepsis CDSS (63.7% vs. 52.6%; P = 0.071). Multivariate analysis showed that age (AOR [adjusted odds ratio], 1.033; P = 0.002) and body temperature (AOR, 1.677; P < 0.001) were associated with bundle compliance.

Conclusions: Among patients with a positive qSOFA score at presentation, sepsis developed in 86.6%, which means the qSOFA-based sepsis CDSS may be helpful; however, it was not associated with improved bundle compliance. Future quality improvement studies with multifactorial, hospital-wide approaches using sepsis CDSS tools are warranted.


Quick SOFA; Compliance; Resuscitation bundle; Clinical decision support system; Sepsis

Cite and Share

Youn-Jung Kim,Jae-Ho Lee,Sang-Wook Lee,Won Young Kim. Use of quick sequential organ failure assessment score-based sepsis clinical decision support system may be helpful to predict sepsis development. Signa Vitae. 2021. 17(5);86-94.


[1] Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, Rea TD, Scherag A, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016; 315: 762–774.

[2] 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). The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016; 315: 801–810.

[3] Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Medicine. 2017; 43: 304–377.

[4] Leisman DE, Doerfler ME, Ward MF, Masick KD, Wie BJ, Gribben JL, et al. Survival benefit and cost savings from compliance with a simplified

3- hour sepsis bundle in a series of prospective, multisite, observational cohorts. Critical Care Medicine. 2017; 45: 395–406.

[5] Pruinelli L, Westra BL, Yadav P, Hoff A, Steinbach M, Kumar V, et al. Delay within the 3-hour surviving sepsis campaign guideline on mortality for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Critical Care Medicine. 2018; 46: 500–505.

[6] Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. British Medical Journal. 2005; 330: 765.

[7] Handel DA, Wears RL, Nathanson LA, Pines JM. Using information technology to improve the quality and safety of emergency care. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2011; 18: e45–e51.

[8] Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, Steen EB, Wright A, Detmer DE. A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007; 14: 141–145.

[9] Nelson JL, Smith BL, Jared JD, Younger JG. Prospective trial of real-time electronic surveillance to expedite early care of severe sepsis. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2011; 57: 500–504.

[10] McNarry AF, Goldhill DR. Simple bedside assessment of level of consciousness: comparison of two simple assessment scales with the Glasgow Coma scale. Anaesthesia. 2004; 59: 34–37.

[11] Kim Y, Kang J, Ryoo SM, Ahn S, Huh JW, Kim WY. Platelet-lymphocyte ratio after granulocyte colony stimulating factor administration: an early prognostic marker in septic shock patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Shock. 2019; 52: 160–165.

[12] Deis AS, Whiles BB, Brown AR, Satterwhite CL, Simpson SQ. Three-hour bundle compliance and outcomes in patients with undiagnosed severe sepsis. Chest. 2018; 153: 39–45.

[13] Kang MJ, Shin TG, Jo IJ, Jeon K, Suh GY, Sim MS, et al. Factors influencing compliance with early resuscitation bundle in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Shock. 2012; 38: 474–479.

[14] Shin TG, Jo IJ, Choi DJ, Kang MJ, Jeon K, Suh GY, et al. The adverse effect of emergency department crowding on compliance with the resuscitation bundle in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Critical Care. 2013; 17: R224.

[15] McCarthy ML, Aronsky D, Jones ID, Miner JR, Band RA, Baren JM, et al. The emergency department occupancy rate: a simple measure of emergency department crowding? Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2008; 51: 15–24.

[16] Sikka R, Sweis R, Kaucky C, Kulstad E. Automated dispensing cabinet alert improves compliance with obtaining blood cultures before antibiotic administration for patients admitted with pneumonia. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2012; 38: 224–228.

[17] Cottney A. Improving the safety and efficiency of nurse medication rounds through the introduction of an automated dispensing cabinet. BMJ Quality Improvement Reports. 2014; 3: u204237.w1843.

[18] Freund Y, Lemachatti N, Krastinova E, Van Laer M, Claessens Y, Avondo A, et al. Prognostic accuracy of sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017; 317: 301–308.

[19] Fernando SM, Tran A, Taljaard M, Cheng W, Rochwerg B, Seely AJE, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the quick sequential organ failure assessment for mortality in patients with suspected infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018; 168: 266–275.

[20] Lamontagne F, Harrison DA, Rowan KM. QSOFA for identifying sepsis among patients with infection. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017; 317: 267–268.

[21] Hwang SY, Jo IJ, Lee SU, Lee TR, Yoon H, Cha WC, et al. Low accuracy of positive qSOFA criteria for predicting 28-day mortality in critically ill septic patients during the early period after emergency department presentation. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2018; 71: 1–9.e2.

[22] Jentzer JC, Kashou AH, Lopez-Jimenez F, Attia ZI, Kapa S, Friedman PA, et al. Mortality risk stratification using artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram in cardiac intensive care unit patients. European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2020; zuaa021.

[23] Zhang Z, Navarese EP, Zheng B, Meng Q, Liu N, Ge H, et al. Analytics with artificial intelligence to advance the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. 2020; 13: 301–312.

[24] Cho K, Kwon O, Kwon J, Lee Y, Park H, Jeon K, et al. Detecting patient deterioration using artificial intelligence in a rapid response system. Critical Care Medicine. 2020; 48: e285–e289.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index The CAS Source Index (CASSI) Search Tool is an online resource that can quickly identify or confirm journal titles and abbreviations for publications indexed by CAS since 1907, including serial and non-serial scientific and technical publications.

IndexCopernicus The Index Copernicus International (ICI) Journals database’s is an international indexation database of scientific journals. It covered international scientific journals which divided into general information, contents of individual issues, detailed bibliography (references) sections for every publication, as well as full texts of publications in the form of attached files (optional). For now, there are more than 58,000 scientific journals registered at ICI.

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research The Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 and it works in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The overall objectives of the Foundation are to promote and develop health education and research programs.

Scopus: CiteScore 0.5(2019) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Embase Embase (often styled EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE), produced by Elsevier, is a biomedical and pharmacological database of published literature designed to support information managers and pharmacovigilance in complying with the regulatory requirements of a licensed drug.

Submission Turnaround Time