Abstract
Background COVID-19 has placed unprecedented demands on hospitals. A clinical service, COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h) was launched in November 2020 to support remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients in the community. Remote monitoring through CO@h aims to identify early patient deterioration and provide timely escalation for cases of silent hypoxia, while reducing the burden on secondary care.
Methods We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of COVID-19 patients onboarded to CO@h from November 2020 to March 2021 in the North Hampshire (UK) community led service (a collaboration of 15 GP practices, covering a population of 230,000 people). We have compared outcomes for patients admitted to Basingstoke & North Hampshire Hospital who were CO@h patients (COVID-19 patients with monitoring of SpO2 (n=137)), with non CO@h patients (those directly admitted without being monitored by CO@h (n=633)). Odds Ratio analysis was performed to contrast the likelihood of patient outcomes resulting in 30 day mortality, ICU admission and length of stay greater than 3, 7, 14, and 28 days.
Results Hospital length of stay was reduced by an average of 6.3 days for CO@h patients (6.9 95% CI [5.6 - 8.1]) in comparison to Non-CO@h (13.2 95% CI [12.2 - 14.1]). The most significant odds ratio effect was on mortality (0.23 95%CI [0.11 - 0.49]), followed by length of stay > 14 days (OR 0.23 95%CI [0.13 - 0.42]), length of stay > 28 days (OR 0.23 95%CI [0.08 - 0.65]), length of stay > 7 days (OR 0.35 95%CI [0.24 - 0.52]), and length of stay > 3 days (OR 0.52 95%CI [0.35 - 0.78]). Mortality and length of stay outcomes were statistically significant. Only 5/137 (3.6%) where admitted to ICU compared with 52/633 (8.2%) for Non-CO@h.
Conclusions CO@h has demonstrated considerably improved patient outcomes reducing the odds of longer length hospital stays and mortality.
Competing Interest Statement
M. I-K. is National Clinical Lead Deterioration & National Specialist Advisor Sepsis, NHS England and NHS Improvement. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This report received funding from the NHSX RECOxCARE (Remote oximetry in community care for COVID-19 patients) project and from NHS England to support data collection.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This service evaluation did not require ethics approval. The study was however evaluated by the University of Southampton Ethics Committee (REF ERGO/61242) and approved as a service evaluation following Data Protection Impact Assessment and establishment of Data Sharing Agreements. NHS England and NHS Improvement have been given legal notice by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to support the processing and sharing of information to help the COVID-19 response under Health Service Control of Patient Information Regulations 2002 (COPI). This is to ensure that confidential patient information can be used and shared appropriately and lawfully for purposes related to the COVID-19 response. Data were extracted from medical records by clinicians providing care for the patients and an anonymised extract of the data were provided to the team at the University of Southampton.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos