Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35347065›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2022

COVID-19 Oximetry @home: evaluation of patient outcomes.

Michael Boniface, Daniel Burns, Christopher Duckworth, Mazen Ahmed, Franklin Duruiheoma, Htwe Armitage, Naomi Ratcliffe, John Duffy, Caroline O'Keeffe, Matt Inada-Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Patient Characteristics Associated With Disparities in Engagement With and Experience of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael BonifaceIT Innovation Centre, School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9281-6095
Daniel BurnsIT Innovation Centre, School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Christopher DuckworthIT Innovation Centre, School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK C.J.Duckworth@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0659-2177
Mazen AhmedIT Innovation Centre, School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Franklin DuruiheomaAcute Medical Unit, Department of Acute Medicine, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Htwe ArmitageAcute Medical Unit, Department of Acute Medicine, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Naomi RatcliffeAcute Medical Unit, Department of Acute Medicine, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
John DuffyAcute Medical Unit, Department of Acute Medicine, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Caroline O'KeeffeClinical Lead for Urgent and Emergency Care, North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Winchester, UK.
Matt Inada-KimAcute Medical Unit, Department of Acute Medicine, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust · GBBusiness Innovation Centre · ITHampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has placed unprecedented demands on hospitals. A clinical service, COVID-19 Oximetry @home (CO@h) was launched in November 2020 to support remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients in the community. Remote monitoring through CO@h aims to identify early patient deterioration and provide timely escalation for cases of silent hypoxia, while reducing the burden on secondary care.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective service evaluation of COVID-19 patients onboarded to CO@h from November 2020 to March 2021 in the North Hampshire (UK) community led service (a collaboration of 15 General Practitioner (GP) practices covering 230 000 people). We have compared outcomes for patients admitted to Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital who were CO@h patients (COVID-19 patients with home monitoring of oxygen saturation (SpO

resultsAdjusted ORs for CO@h show an association with a reduction for several adverse patient outcome: 30-day hospital mortality (p<0.001, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47), hospital length of stay larger than 3 days (p<0.05, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.00), 7 days (p<0.001, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.54), 14 days (p<0.001, OR 0.22 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.41), and 28 days (p<0.05, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59). No significant reduction ICU admission was observed (p>0.05, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.04). Within 30 days of hospital admission, there were no hospital readmissions for those on the CO@h service as opposed to 8.7% readmissions for those not on the service.

conclusionsWe have demonstrated a significant association between CO@h and better patient outcomes; most notably a reduction in the odds of hospital lengths of stays longer than 7, 14 and 28 days and 30-day hospital mortality.

Indexed as

COVID-19Hospital MortalityHumansLength of StayOximetryRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19Evidence-Based PracticeQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID35347065
PMCPMC8960465
OpenAlexW4220662035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.