Abstract
Background There was a national roll out of ‘COVID Virtual Wards’ (CVW) during England’s second COVID-19 wave (Autumn 2020 – Spring 2021). These services used remote pulse oximetry monitoring for COVID-19 patients following discharge from hospital. A key aim was to enable rapid detection of patient deterioration. It was anticipated that the services would support early discharge and avoid readmissions, reducing pressure on beds. This study is an evaluation of the impact of the CVW services on hospital activity.
Methods Using retrospective patient-level hospital admissions data, we built multivariate models to analyse the relationship between the implementation of CVW services and hospital activity outcomes: length of COVID-19 related stays and subsequent COVID-19 readmissions within 28 days. We used data from more than 98% of recorded COVID-19 hospital stays in England, where the patient was discharged alive between mid-August 2020 and late February 2021.
Findings We found a longer length of stay for COVID-19 patients discharged from hospitals where a CVW was available, when compared to patients discharged from hospitals where there was no CVW (adjusted IRR 1·05, 95% CI 1·01 to 1·09). We found no evidence of a relationship between the availability of CVW and subsequent rates of readmission for COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·89 to 1·02).
Interpretation We found no evidence of early discharges or reduced readmissions associated with the roll out of COVID Virtual Wards across England. Our analysis made pragmatic use of national-scale hospital data, but it is possible that a lack of specific data (for example, on which patients were enrolled) may have meant that true impacts, especially at a local level, were not ultimately discernible.
Funding This is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme and NHSEI.
Evidence before this study Post-hospital virtual wards have been found to have a positive impact on patient outcomes when focussed on patients with specific diseases, for example those with heart disease. There has been less evidence of impact for more heterogenous groups of patients. While these services have been rolled out at scale in England, there has been little evidence thus far that post-hospital virtual wards (using pulse oximetry monitoring) have helped to reduce the length of stay of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, or rates of subsequent readmissions for COVID-19.
Added value of this study This national-scale study provides evidence that the rollout of post-hospital discharge virtual ward services for COVID-19 patients in England did not reduce lengths of stay in hospital, or rates of readmission.
Implications of all the available evidence While there is currently an absence of evidence of positive impacts for COVID-19 patients discharged to a virtual ward, our study emphasises the need for quality data to be collected as part of future service implementation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
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 use of HES APC data was governed by a data sharing agreement with NHS Digital covering NIHR RSET analysis (DARS-NIC-194629-S4F9X).
A protocol covering this analysis (as one part of a wider study) received ethical approval from the University of Birmingham Humanities and Social Sciences ethics committee (ERN_13-1085AP39) and was categorised as a service evaluation by the HRA decision tool and UCL/UCLH Joint Research Office (Jan 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.
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.
https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars