Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36854617›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023

Evaluating the impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in patients with COVID-19 assessed in emergency departments in England: a retrospective matched cohort study.

Thomas Beaney, Jonathan Clarke, Ahmed Alboksmaty, Kelsey Flott, Aidan Fowler, Jonathan Benger, Paul P Aylin, Sarah Elkin, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas BeaneyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK thomas.beaney@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9709-7264
Jonathan ClarkePatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1495-7746
Ahmed AlboksmatyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Kelsey FlottPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Aidan FowlerNHS Improvement, London, UK.
Jonathan BengerNHS Digital, Leeds, UK.
Paul P AylinDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4589-1743
Sarah ElkinImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Ara DarziPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ana Luisa NevesPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImprovement Service · GBNHS Digital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify the impact of enrolment onto a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID-19 Oximetry @home; CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Emergency Departments (EDs).

methodsWe conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from EDs in England. We included all patients with a positive COVID-19 test from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021 who attended ED from 3 days before to 10 days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first ED attendance within the time window were excluded. In the primary analysis, participants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled. Five outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first ED attendance: (1) Death from any cause; (2) Any subsequent ED attendance; (3) Any emergency hospital admission; (4) Critical care admission; and (5) Length of stay.

results15 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% to 75%) compared with those not enrolled onto CO@h. Odds of any ED attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI 16% to 63%) and 59% (95% CI 32% to 91%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI 7% to 76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay.

conclusionsThese findings indicate that for patients assessed in ED, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation. However, possible selection biases might limit the generalisability to other populations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cohort StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalHumansOximetryPatient Acceptance of Health CareRetrospective Studiesadmission avoidanceCOVID-19primary health care

Identifiers

PMID36854617
PMCPMC10313966
OpenAlexW4322619066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.