Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

IntroductionQuick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is potentially feasible tool to identify risk of deteriorating in the context of infection for to use in resource limited settings.PurposeTo compare the discriminative ability of qSOFA and a simplified systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score to detect deterioration in patients admitted with infection.MethodsObservational study conducted at District General Hospital Monaragala, Sri Lanka, utilising bedside available observations extracted from healthcare records. Discrimination was evaluated using area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). 15,577 consecutive adult ( ≥ 18 years) admissions were considered. Patients classifi ed as having infection per ICD-10 diagnostic coding were included.ResultsBoth scores were evaluated for their ability to discriminate patients at risk of death or a composite adverse outcome (death, cardiac arrest, intensive care unit [ICU], admission or critical care transfer). 1844 admissions (11.8%) were due to infections with 20 deaths (1.1%), 29 ICU admissions (1.6%), 30 cardiac arrests and 9 clinical transfers to a tertiary hospital (0.5%). Sixty-seven (3.6%) patients experienced at least one event. Complete datasets were available for qSOFA in 1238 (67.14%) and for simplified SIRS (mSIRS) in 1628 (88.29%) admissions. Mean (SD) qSOFA score and mSIRS score at admission were 0.58 (0.69) and 0.66 (0.79) respectively. Both demonstrated poor discrimination for predicting adverse outcome AUROC = 0.625; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69 and AUROC = 0.615; 95% CI, 0.55-0.69 respectively) with no significant difference (p value = 0.74). Similarly, both systems had poor discrimination for predicting deaths (AUROC = 0.685; 95% CI, 0.55-0.82 and AUROC = 0.629; 95% CI, 0.50-0.76 respectively) with no statistically signifi cant difference (p value = 0.31).ConclusionsqSOFA at admission had poor discrimination and was not superior to the bedside observations featured in SIRS. Availability of observations, especially for mentation, is poor in these settings and requires strategies to improve reporting.

Original publication




Journal article


Journal of acute medicine

Publication Date





141 - 148


Network for Improving Critical Care Systems and Training Colombo Sri Lanka.