Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment to identify clinical deterioration in adults with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7239.4531Keywords:
COVID-19; Vital Signs; Early Warning Score; Clinical Deterioration; Nursing Care; Hospital Emergency ServiceAbstract
Objective: to evaluate the performance of qSOFA in identifying deterioration in patients with COVID-19. Method: retrospective cohort study conducted between February and August 2020 in the Emergency Department of a private hospital, involving 813 adults. The variables studied included sociodemographic data, clinical characteristics, deterioration, qSOFA on admission and before the event, and outcomes. The performance of qSOFA at both moments was analyzed using the area under the ROC curve. Results: the average age was 69 years. There was a predominance of men (61.5%), white (97.2%), catholic (73.7%), married (89.6%) and employed (66%). Comorbidities were present in 69.7%, and 58.8% were classified as “urgent” upon admission. The most frequent deterioration was respiratory failure (16.7%), and the outcome was discharge (68%). Patients with positive qSOFA on admission had a higher percentage of respiratory failure, cardiopulmonary arrest, and “very urgent” risk classification, and those with negative qSOFA showed a higher percentage of discharge (p< 0.0001). Upon admission, qSOFA showed 66% sensitivity and 55% specificity, and prior to the event it showed 48% sensitivity and 88% specificity for identifying clinical deterioration. Patients with positive qSOFA on admission were 350 times more likely to experience deterioration. Conclusion: qSOFA showed low sensitivity for identifying deterioration at both moments and high specificity before the event.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.