Evidence Hub

Clinical Decision Support for Septic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Scott HF, Sevick CJ, Colborn KL, Deakyne Davies SJ, Greer CH, Dafoe A, Dorsey Holliman B, Bajaj L et al.

Pediatrics, 2025

11 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Delays in septic shock diagnosis cause preventable mortality in children. Evidence is limited around early recognition strategies. The hypothesis was that clinical decision support (CDS) based on machine-learning predictive models would increase the proportion of children receiving septic shock treatment prior to shock onset.

METHODS

CDS was implemented in a prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial in 4 pediatric emergency departments (EDs) over five 10-week periods. The CDS used models identifying children who did not yet have shock but were predicted to be at high risk based on electronic health record data at arrival and after 2 hours. Providers received CDS; effectiveness was evaluated in patients 60 days to 18 years with concern for sepsis. The primary outcome was antibiotic and bolus within 1 hour of sepsis suspicion. Secondary outcomes were time-to-antibiotic, hypotensive septic shock. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Of 200 354 ED encounters from March 16, 2022, to March 1, 2023, 1331 encounters met inclusion criteria (979 intervention, 352 control arms). Antibiotic and bolus within 1 hour occurred in 39.0% of patients in the intervention arm versus 38.9% of patients in the control arm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07 [0.61-1.88]). There was no difference in outcomes of shock (aOR: 1.12 [0.53-2.46]) or antibiotic timeliness (aHR: 0.85 [0.63-1.16]). Providers reported the CDS felt valuable…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free