PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - T Beaney AU - J Clarke AU - A Alboksmaty AU - K Flott AU - A Fowler AU - JR Benger AU - P Aylin AU - S Elkin AU - A Darzi AU - AL Neves TI - Evaluating the impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in patients with covid-19 assessed in Accident and Emergency departments in England: a retrospective matched cohort study AID - 10.1101/2021.11.25.21266848 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.11.25.21266848 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/29/2021.11.25.21266848.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/29/2021.11.25.21266848.full AB - Objectives To identify the impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for covid-19 (COVID Oximetry @home; CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments.Design Retrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from A&E.Setting National Health Service (NHS) A&E departments in England.Participants All patients with a positive covid-19 test from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021 who attended A&E from three days before to ten days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first A&E attendance within the time window were excluded.Interventions Participants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled.Main outcome measures Five outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first A&E attendance: i) death from any cause; ii) any subsequent A&E attendance; iii) any emergency hospital admission; iv) critical care admission; and v) length of stay.Results 15,621 participants were included in the primary analysis, of whom 639 were enrolled onto CO@h and 14,982 were controls. Odds of death were 52% lower in those enrolled (95% CI: 7%-75% lower) compared to those not enrolled on CO@h. Odds of any A&E attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI: 16-63%) and 59% (95% CI: 16-63%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI: 7%-76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay.Conclusions These findings indicate that for patients assessed in A&E, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation, leading to increased subsequent A&E attendance and admissions, and reduced critical care requirement and mortality.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 competing interests.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). The study funder(s) did not play a role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. In addition, researchers were independent from funders, and all authors had full access to all of the data included in this study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.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.