RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Population level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with covid-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.11.29.21266847
DO 10.1101/2021.11.29.21266847
A1 Beaney, T
A1 Clarke, J
A1 Alboksmaty, A
A1 Flott, K
A1 Fowler, A
A1 Benger, JR
A1 Aylin, P
A1 Elkin, S
A1 Neves, AL
A1 Darzi, A
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/30/2021.11.29.21266847.abstract
AB Objectives To identify the population level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for covid-19 (COVID Oximetry @home; CO@h) in England on mortality and health service use.Design Retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre- and post-implementation design.Setting All Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme.Participants 217,650 people with a positive covid-19 polymerase chain reaction test result and symptomatic, from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021, aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable. Care home residents were excluded.Interventions A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared to a post-intervention period after implementation.Main outcome measures Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test: i) death from any cause; ii) any A&E attendance; iii) any emergency hospital admission; iv) critical care admission; and v) total length of hospital stay.Results Implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. Implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of A&E attendance (95% CI: 6%-18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5%-20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5%-47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure. However, uptake of the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5,527 (2.5%) of the eligible population.Conclusions At a population level, there was no association with mortality following implementation of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. Low enrolment of eligible people may have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.Competing Interest StatementJC has received fees from Philips UK Limited for consultancy services outside of the submitted work. SE has received fees for an educational lecture sponsored by Astra Zeneca and is co-clinical director for the NHS England and Improvement London Respiratory Network. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by NHS England and supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Patient Safety Translation Research Centre. Infrastructure support was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). JC acknowledges support from the Wellcome Trust (215938/Z/19/Z).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The work was conducted as a national service evaluation of the CO@h programme, approved by Imperial College Health Trust on 3rd December 2020. Data access was approved by the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD; DARS-NIC-421524-R0Y3P) on 15th April 2021.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe patient level data used in this study are not publicly available but are available to applicants meeting certain criteria through application of a Data Access Request Service (DARS) and approval from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data.