Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

ICU TopicsEthics

ICU · Ethics

ICU severity scoring systems

Also known as APACHE II · SOFA score · SAPS II · qSOFA · Mortality prediction

ICU scoring systems predict mortality, compare quality between units, and stratify patients for research. APACHE II (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation): 12 physiological variables + age + chronic health — most widely used. Score 0-71 (higher = worse); in the 1985 derivation cohort, rising scores tracked a rising risk of hospital death. SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment): 6 organ systems (respiratory, coagulation, liver, cardiovascular, CNS, renal) — daily tracking. SOFA =2 defines organ dysfunction (Sepsis-3). qSOFA: 3 items (RR 22, altered mentation, SBP <100) — for screening outside ICU. SAPS II/3: alternative to APACHE. Scores are for POPULATIONS not individuals — do NOT use alone for treatment limitation decisions.

medium12 referencesUpdated 20 Aug 202611 min readVerification in progress

Practise this topic

  • 8 MCQs

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

CICMFFICMEDIC

Red flags

  • Scoring systems predict POPULATION mortality, not INDIVIDUAL outcomes — never use alone for end-of-life decisions
  • SOFA >=2 = organ dysfunction (Sepsis-3 definition of sepsis)
  • qSOFA is for SCREENING (outside ICU) — NOT for diagnosis in ICU
  • APACHE II is calculated from worst values in first 24h — not real-time
On this page
Study tools

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

CICMFFICMEDIC

Red flags

  • Scoring systems predict POPULATION mortality, not INDIVIDUAL outcomes — never use alone for end-of-life decisions
  • SOFA >=2 = organ dysfunction (Sepsis-3 definition of sepsis)
  • qSOFA is for SCREENING (outside ICU) — NOT for diagnosis in ICU
  • APACHE II is calculated from worst values in first 24h — not real-time
The one-line answer

ICU severity scores do four different jobs and candidates blur them. APACHE II (twelve physiological variables plus age plus chronic health, worst value in the first 24 hours) predicts hospital mortality for benchmarking. SOFA (six organ systems, scored daily) tracks organ dysfunction and defines sepsis when it rises by two or more. qSOFA (respiratory rate 22 or more, altered mentation, systolic BP 100 or less) screens for sepsis on the ward, not in the ICU. SAPS 3 is the modern APACHE alternative. Every one of them describes populations — no validated score decides the fate of an individual patient.[3][5][7]

Meet the patient

A 64-year-old man arrives in septic shock from a urinary source — noradrenaline 0.25 mcg/kg/min for a mean arterial pressure of 65, mechanically ventilated, lactate 4.8 mmol/L. His admission SOFA is 10. Three days into Surviving Sepsis care his SOFA is 12 and the noradrenaline has climbed, not fallen. The registrar asks the question that ends careers: his APACHE II is 34, deep in the high-risk end of a 0-71 scale whose rising scores tracked rising hospital mortality in the 1985 cohort — so should we be de-escalating?[3][5]

Hold that question. It bundles every error this topic exists to prevent — quoting a population percentage at an individual, reading a rising trajectory as a verdict, and reaching for a number to do the work of a multidisciplinary conversation. By the end of this page you will know exactly why the answer is no, and what the scores are actually for.[3]

ICU Fellowship (CICM) Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this topic. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the ICU Fellowship (CICM) fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References12ShowHide
  1. [1]Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, MacIsaac C, Bellomo R, Pilcher DV. Prognostic Accuracy of the SOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and qSOFA Score for In-Hospital Mortality Among Adults With Suspected Infection Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit JAMA, 2017.PMID 28114553
  2. [2]Moreno RP, Metnitz PGH, Almeida E, et al. SAPS 3: From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission Intensive Care Med, 2005.PMID 16132892
  3. [3]Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system Crit Care Med, 1985.PMID 3928249
  4. [4]Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Intensive Care Med, 1996.PMID 8844239
  5. [5]Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA, 2016.PMID 26903338
  6. [6]Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA, 2016.PMID 26903335
  7. [7]Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study JAMA, 1993.PMID 8254858
  8. [8]Paul E, Bailey M, Kasza J, Pilcher DV. Assessing contemporary intensive care unit outcome: development and validation of the Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death admission model Anaesth Intensive Care, 2017.PMID 28486891
  9. [9]Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients N Engl J Med, 2009.PMID 19318384
  10. [10]van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients N Engl J Med, 2001.PMID 11794168
  11. [11]Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis N Engl J Med, 2008.PMID 18184958
  12. [12]Harrison DA, Parry GJ, Carpenter JR, Short A, Rowan K. A new risk prediction model for critical care: the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC) model Crit Care Med, 2007.PMID 17334248

Test yourself

Practise what you just read

  • 8 MCQs
ICU Fellowship (CICM) Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete ICU Fellowship (CICM) library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousICU quality improvement: checklists, bundles, and infection preventionEthicsNextICU staff wellbeing and burnoutEthics