This narrative review explores the implementation and impact of sepsis code protocols, an urgent intervention strategy designed to improve clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. We examined the degree of implementation, activation criteria, areas of implementation, personnel involved, responses after activation, goals and targets, impact on clinical indicators, and challenges in implementation. The reviewed evidence suggests that sepsis codes can significantly reduce sepsis-related mortality and enhance early administration of treatments. However, variability in activation criteria and inconsistent application present ongoing challenges. The review considers the incorporation of newer scoring systems, such as NEWS and MEWS, and the potential integration of machine learning tools for early sepsis detection. It highlights the importance of tailoring implementation to specific healthcare contexts and the value of ongoing training to optimize sepsis response. Limitations include the ongoing controversy surrounding sepsis definitions and the need for standardized, feasible quality indicators. Future research should focus on standardizing activation criteria, improving protocol adherence, and exploring emerging technologies to enhance early sepsis detection and management. Despite challenges, sepsis codes show promise in improving patient outcomes when implemented thoughtfully and consistently across healthcare settings.
SingerMDeutschmanCSSeymourC, et al.The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801‐810. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2016.0287
2.
RuddKEJohnsonSCAgesaKM, et al.Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200‐211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7
3.
Candel GonzálezFJBorges SáMBeldaS, et al.Current aspects in sepsis approach. Turning things around. Rev Esp Quim. 2018;31(4):298. Accessed November 3, 2023. /pmc/articles/PMC6172679/.
4.
FleischmannCScheragAAdhikariNKJ, et al.Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259‐272. doi:https://doi.org/10.1164/RCCM.201504-0781OC
5.
Álvaro-MecaAJiménez-SousaMAMicheloudD, et al.Epidemiological trends of sepsis in the twenty-first century (2000-2013): an analysis of incidence, mortality, and associated costs in Spain. Popul Health Metr. 2018;16(1):4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/S12963-018-0160-X
6.
DamianiEDonatiASerafiniG, et al.Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125827. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0125827
EvansLRhodesAAlhazzaniW, et al.Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181‐1247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
9.
KumarARobertsDWoodKE, et al.Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589‐1596. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9
10.
Llopis-RocaFIzquierdoRLMiroOGarcía-LamberechtsJEJiménezAJDel CastilloJG. Current situation of sepsis care in Spanish emergency departments. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2022;35(2):192‐203. doi:https://doi.org/10.37201/REQ/150.2021
FerrerRGonzález Del CastilloJMartínez-MartínezMPlata-MenchacaEPLarrosaMN. Time to decision in sepsis. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2023;36(1):82‐87. doi:https://doi.org/10.37201/REQ/083.2022
14.
Borges SaMCandel GonzalezFJFerrer RocaRZaragoza CrespoR. Código sepsis Documento de consenso Recomendaciones. Published online2016. Accessed March 8, 2024. https://www.codigosepsis.com
Daniels R, Nutbeam T. The sepsis manual. United Kingdom Sepsis Trust; 2024. Accessed March 30, 2024. https://sepsistrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Sepsis-Manual-7th-Edition-2024-V1.0.pdf.
18.
LinY. Effectiveness of the sepsis six bundle in the management of acute adult sepsis in the UK. Emerg Nurse. 2021;29(2):26-29. doi:https://doi.org/10.7748/EN.2020.E2064
DelawderJMHultonL. An interdisciplinary code sepsis team to improve sepsis-bundle compliance: a quality improvement project. J Emerg Nurs. 2020;46(1):91-98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2019.07.001
21.
WhitfieldPLRatliffPDLockhartLL, et al.Implementation of an adult code sepsis protocol and its impact on SEP-1 core measure perfect score attainment in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38(5):879‐882. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2019.07.002
22.
CurrieKEBarryHScanlanJMHarveyEM. Impact of a multidisciplinary sepsis huddle in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2023;64:150‐154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2022.12.006
23.
KangMTorrianiFJSellREWardiGAbelesSR. The impact of an inpatient nurse-triggered sepsis alert on antimicrobial utilization. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021;47(3):157‐164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCJQ.2020.11.004
24.
ZitekTBourneMRaberJShirARyabtsevB. Blood culture results and overtreatment associated with the use of a 1-hour sepsis bundle. J Emerg Med. 2020;59(5):629‐636. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEMERMED.2020.06.055
25.
BeardsleyJRJonesCMWilliamsonJChouJCurrie-CoyoyMJacksonT. Pharmacist involvement in a multidisciplinary initiative to reduce sepsis-related mortality. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(3):143‐149. doi:https://doi.org/10.2146/AJHP150186
26.
Pinilla RelloAHuarte LacunzaRMagallón MartínezA, et al.Assessment of outcomes of implementing the sepsis code in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital. J Healthc Qual Res. 2020;35(5):281‐290. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHQR.2020.06.008
27.
HerrejónEPDel CastilloJGRuedaFR, et al.Documento de consenso para la implantación y desarrollo del código sepsis en la comunidad de Madrid. Rev Esp Quim. 2019;32(4):400. Accessed November 3, 2023. /pmc/articles/PMC6719654/.
28.
Ferreras AmezJMArribas EntralaBAntonioM, et al. Evaluación de Los Resultados Antes y Después de La Implantación Del Código Sepsis En Aragón. Vol 29; 2017.
29.
NguyenHBCorbettSWSteeleR, et al.Implementation of a bundle of quality indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with decreased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(4):1105‐1112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000259463.33848.3D
30.
Robert BoterNSteinherr ZazoARocamora BlanchGAntolin CaminalOCarreres MolasAMòdol DeltellJM. Activación del código sepsis en urgencias: Rendimiento de la escala q-SOFA respecto los criterios SIRS. Med Clin (Barc). 2022;158(6):260‐264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEDCLI.2021.03.039
31.
Orviz GarcíaETornero RomeroFNúñez-OrantosMJ. Código sepsis: El problema de la identificación. Med Clin (Barc). 2020;154(10):418‐419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEDCLI.2019.04.017
32.
Robert BoterNMòdol DeltellJMCasas GarciaIRocamora BlanchGLladós BeltranGCarreres MolasA. Activation of a code sepsis in the emergency department is associated with a decrease in mortality. Med Clin (Barc). 2019;152(7):255‐260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEDCLI.2018.02.013
33.
JonesSLAshtonCMKiehneL, et al.Reductions in sepsis mortality and costs after design and implementation of a nurse-based early recognition and response program. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(11):483‐491. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(15)41063-3
34.
TaylorSPRozarioNKowalkowskiMA, et al.Trends in false-positive code sepsis activations in the emergency department. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(4):520‐522. doi:https://doi.org/10.1513/ANNALSATS.201910-757RL
35.
HernándezABde Vega-RíosEBallesterosJS, et al.Impact of the implementation of a sepsis code program in medical patient management: A cohort study in an internal medicine ward. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2022;35(2):178‐191. doi:https://doi.org/10.37201/REQ/132.2021
MéndezRFiguerolaAChicotM, et al.Sepsis code: dodging mortality in a tertiary hospital. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2022;35(1):43‐49. doi:https://doi.org/10.37201/REQ/105.2021
38.
YébenesJCLorencioCEstebanE, et al.Interhospital sepsis code in catalonia (Spain): territorial model for initial care of patients with sepsis. Med Intensiva. 2020;44(1):36‐45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEDIN.2019.05.008
39.
García-LópezLGrau-CerratoSde Frutos-SotoA, et al.Impact of the implementation of a sepsis code hospital protocol in antibiotic prescription and clinical outcomes in an intensive care unit. Med Intensiva. 2017;41(1):12‐20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEDIN.2016.08.001
40.
EisenbergMFreimanECapraroA, et al.Comparison of manual and automated sepsis screening tools in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics. 2021;147(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1542/PEDS.2020-022590
41.
NelsonJLSmithBLJaredJDYoungerJG. Prospective trial of real-time electronic surveillance to expedite early care of severe sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(5):500‐504. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNEMERGMED.2010.12.008
42.
BalamuthFAlpernERGrundmeierRW, et al.Comparison of two sepsis recognition methods in a pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(11):1298‐1306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ACEM.12814
BrunettiEIsaiaGRinaldiG, et al.Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of qSOFA, NEWS, and MEWS to identify sepsis in older inpatients with suspected infection. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022;23(5):865‐871.e2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAMDA.2021.09.005
45.
O'ReillyDMcGrathJMartin-LoechesI. Optimizing artificial intelligence in sepsis management: Opportunities in the present and looking closely to the future. J Intensive Med. 2024;4(1):34‐45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOINTM.2023.10.001
46.
DowningNLRolnickJPooleSF, et al.Electronic health record-based clinical decision support alert for severe sepsis: a randomised evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(9):762. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJQS-2018-008765
47.
RobertsJAJoyntGMChoiGYSGomersallCDLipmanJ. How to optimise antimicrobial prescriptions in the intensive care unit: Principles of individualised dosing using pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;39(3):187‐192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.11.002
WangCXuRZengYZhaoYHuX. A comparison of qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS in predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0266755
50.
WattanasitPKhwannimitB. Comparison the accuracy of early warning scores with qSOFA and SIRS for predicting sepsis in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;46:284‐288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2020.07.077
51.
VermaAFarooqAJaiswalS, et al.National early warning score 2 is superior to quick sequential organ failure assessment in predicting mortality in sepsis patients presenting to the emergency department in India: A prospective observational study. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2023;13(1):26. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/IJCIIS.IJCIIS_41_22
52.
OduncuAFKıyanGSYalçınlıS. Comparison of qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS scoring systems for diagnosis, mortality, and morbidity of sepsis in emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;48:54‐59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.04.006
53.
DesautelsTCalvertJHoffmanJ, et al.Prediction of sepsis in the intensive care unit with minimal electronic health record data: a machine learning approach. JMIR Med Inform. 2016;4(3):e28. doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/MEDINFORM.5909
54.
MaoQJayMHoffmanJL, et al.Multicentre validation of a sepsis prediction algorithm using only vital sign data in the emergency department, general ward and ICU. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e017833. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2017-017833
