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

T. Beaney, J. Clarke, A. Alboksmaty, K. Flott, A. Fowler, J. Benger, P. Aylin, S. Elkin, A. Neves, A. Darzi
{"title":"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","authors":"T. Beaney, J. Clarke, A. Alboksmaty, K. Flott, A. Fowler, J. Benger, P. Aylin, S. Elkin, A. Neves, A. Darzi","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2022-212378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background 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. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre-implementation and post-implementation design, including all 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. All symptomatic people with a positive COVID-19 PCR test result from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021, and who were aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable were included. Care home residents were excluded. A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared with a post-intervention period after implementation. Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test: (i) death from any cause; (ii) any ED attendance; (iii) any emergency hospital admission; (iv) critical care admission and (v) total length of hospital stay. Results 217 650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. The period of implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. The period of implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of ED attendance (95% CI: 6% to 18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5% to 20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5% to 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. Conclusion At a population level, there was no association with mortality before and after the implementation period of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. However, lower than expected enrolment is likely to have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.","PeriodicalId":410922,"journal":{"name":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Background 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. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre-implementation and post-implementation design, including all 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. All symptomatic people with a positive COVID-19 PCR test result from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021, and who were aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable were included. Care home residents were excluded. A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared with a post-intervention period after implementation. Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test: (i) death from any cause; (ii) any ED attendance; (iii) any emergency hospital admission; (iv) critical care admission and (v) total length of hospital stay. Results 217 650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. The period of implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. The period of implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of ED attendance (95% CI: 6% to 18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5% to 20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5% to 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. Conclusion At a population level, there was no association with mortality before and after the implementation period of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. However, lower than expected enrolment is likely to have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.
英格兰脉搏血氧仪远程监测方案对COVID-19患者死亡率和医疗保健利用的人群水平影响:使用阶梯楔形设计的全国分析
背景:确定英格兰COVID-19全国脉搏血氧仪远程监测计划(COVID - oximetry @home (CO@h))对死亡率和卫生服务使用的人群水平影响。方法采用楔形实施前和实施后设计进行回顾性队列研究,包括英国所有106个临床调试组(ccg)实施当地CO@h计划。纳入了2020年10月1日至2021年5月3日期间所有COVID-19 PCR检测结果阳性且年龄≥65岁或临床极度易感的有症状人群。护理之家的居民被排除在外。将每个CCG实施CO@h计划前的干预期与实施后的干预期进行比较。COVID-19检测呈阳性后28天内的五项结局指标:(i)任何原因导致的死亡;(ii)任何ED出席;(iii)任何紧急入院;(iv)重症监护住院和(v)住院总时间。结果217650人入选分析。该计划的总入学率很低,仅收到符合条件的人口中5527人(2.5%)的注册数据。该方案的执行期与死亡率或住院时间无关。实施期间与卫生服务利用率的增加有关,急诊科就诊率(95% CI: 6%至18%)和急诊住院率(95% CI: 5%至20%)增加了12%,住院患者中重症监护住院率增加了24% (95% CI: 5%至47%)。在CO@h网站的二次分析中,至少有10%或20%的符合条件的人注册,与任何结果测量没有显着关联。结论:在人口水平上,CO@h方案实施前后与死亡率没有关联,并且观察到卫生服务利用率有小幅增加。然而,低于预期的入学人数很可能削弱了该方案在人口层面的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信