Comparison of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment and adult sepsis pathway in predicting adverse outcomes among adult patients in general wards: a retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is recommended for use by the most recent international sepsis definition taskforce to identify suspected sepsis in patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of adverse outcomes. Evidence of its comparative effectiveness with existing sepsis recognition tools is important to guide decisions about its widespread implementation. AIM: To compare the performance of qSOFA with the adult sepsis pathway (ASP), a current sepsis recognition tool widely used in NSW hospitals and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in predicting adverse outcomes in adult patients on general wards. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted which included all adults with suspected infections admitted to a Sydney teaching hospital between December 2014 and June 2016. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality with two secondary composite outcomes. RESULTS: Among 2940 patients with suspected infection, 217 (7.38%) died in-hospital and 702 (23.88%) were subsequently admitted to ICU. The ASP showed the greatest ability to correctly discriminate in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for mortality was 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.78), compared to 0.64 for the qSOFA tool (95% CI: 0.61-0.67, P < 0.0001). Median time from the first ASP sepsis warning to death was 8.21 days (interquartile range (IQR): 2.29-16.75) while it was 0 days for qSOFA (IQR: 0-2.58). CONCLUSIONS: The ASP demonstrated both greater prognostic accuracy and earlier warning for in-hospital mortality for adults on hospital wards compared to qSOFA. Hospitals already using ASP may not benefit from switching to the qSOFA tool.

Evaluation of an augmented emergency department electronic medical record-based sepsis alert.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic medical records-based alerts have shown mixed results in identifying ED sepsis. Augmenting clinical patient-flagging with automated alert systems may improve sepsis screening. We evaluate the performance of a hybrid alert to identify patients in ED with sepsis or in-hospital secondary outcomes from infection. METHODS: We extracted a dataset of all patients with sepsis during the study period at five participating Western Sydney EDs. We evaluated the hybrid alert's performance for identifying patients with a discharge diagnosis related to infection and modified sequential sepsis-related organ functional assessment (mSOFA) score ≥2 in ED and also compared the alert to rapid bedside screening tools to identify patients with infection for secondary outcomes of all-cause in-hospital death and/or intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: A total of 118 178 adult patients presented to participating EDs during study period with 1546 patients meeting ED sepsis criteria. The hybrid alert had a sensitivity - 71.2% (95% confidence interval 68.8-73.4), specificity - 96.4% (95% confidence interval 96.3-96.5) for identifying ED sepsis. Clinician flagging identified additional alert-negative 232 ED sepsis and 63 patients with secondary outcomes and 112 alert-positive patients with infection and ED mSOFA score <2 went on to die in hospital. CONCLUSION: The hybrid alert performed modestly in identifying ED sepsis and secondary outcomes from infection. Not all infected patients with a secondary outcome were identified by the alert or mSOFA score ≥2 threshold. Augmenting clinical practice with auto-alerts rather than pure automation should be considered as a potential for sepsis alerting until more reliable algorithms are available for safe use in clinical practice.