Abstract
Background Remote home monitoring of people testing positive for COVID-19 using pulse oximetry was implemented across England during the Winter of 2020/21 to identify falling blood oxygen saturation levels at an early stage. This was hypothesised to enable earlier hospital admission, reduce the need for intensive care and improve survival. This study is an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the pre-hospital monitoring programme, COVID oximetry @home (CO@h).
Methods We analysed relationships at a geographical area level between the extent to which people aged 65 or over were enrolled onto the programme and outcomes over the period between November 2020 to February 2021
Findings For every 10% increase in coverage of the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval: -4% to 1%), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1·8% (-1·2% to 4·9%). None of these results are statistically significant.
Interpretation There are several possible explanations for our findings. One is that the CO@h did not have the hypothesised impact. Another is that the low rates of enrolment and incomplete data in many areas reduced the chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. Also, CO@h has been implemented in many different ways across the country and these may have had varying levels of effect.
Funding This is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Evidence before this study Existing evidence before this study and the search strategy used to obtain this evidence has been published previously by the authors in a systematic review. Previous quantitative studies have assessed remote oximetry monitoring services for COVID-19 patients mostly at individual sites and focussed on their safety. However, their effectiveness has been little studied. This may reflect the challenges of identifying reliable counterfactuals during a rapidly evolving pandemic.
Added value of this study This study is part of a wider mixed methods evaluation that followed the rapid implementation of remote monitoring across the English NHS during the Winter of 2020/21. It adds to the evidence of the effectiveness of such programmes at a national level.
Implications of the available evidence There is some existing evidence that remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients can be locally effective although we have not been able to replicate such findings at a wider level. Missing data and lower coverage of the service than expected may have influenced our results, and the effectiveness of some local programmes could have been lost among the analysis of national data. Future implementation requires better data collection strategies which could be focussed within fewer local areas, and effective learning from areas that have achieved better population coverage.
Competing Interest Statement
Payments were made to the institutions of the authors by the National Institute of Health Research (England) (NIHR) and from NHS England and NHS Improvement via the NIHR
Clinical Protocols
https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2036743
Funding Statement
This is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
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:
The receipt of aggregated data from Public Health England was governed by a data sharing agreement. Receipt of aggregated onboarding data from Imperial College was governed by their separate data sharing agreement with NHS Digital. The access and use of HES was governed by an existing data sharing agreement with NHS Digital covering NIHR RSET analysis (DARS-NIC-194629-S4F9X). Since we were using combinations of aggregated data and datasets for which we already had approval to use, no ethics committee approval was needed for this analysis.
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.
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
Data Availability
Individual patient-level data and data supplied under specific data sharing agreements cannot be made available by the study team. Sources for data that are already publicly available are supplied either in the text or the references. Aggregate survey data collected by the study team will be presented when findings from the relevant workstreams to which they correspond have been published. Other data produced in the study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
