Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37728256›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2023

Can guidelines rein in oxygen use? A retrospective cross-sectional study using routinely collected data.

Usman Talat, Kelly A Schmidtke, Saval Khanal, Alice M Turner, Ivo Vlaev

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Usman TalatAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, M15 6PB, United Kingdom.
Kelly A SchmidtkeUniversity of Health Sciences and Pharmacy in St Louis, MO 63110, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5993-0358
Saval KhanalUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom.
Alice M TurnerInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
Ivo VlaevWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Health Sciences and Pharmacy · USUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Health Foundation [Award 807263]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oxygen is one of the most commonly used emergency therapies. Like other therapies, oxygen can cause harm if used inappropriately. During the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines were released to optimize oxygen and medication use. In the current study, we examine whether oxygen and medication use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was in concordance with new guidelines. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using routinely collected data from University of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust in England. Patients were admitted between April 2020 and September 2020, were over the age of 18 years, and had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. To assess adherence to the oxygen guidelines (i.e. SpO2 adherence), the percentage of times oxygen therapy was administered within, over, and under guideline specifications were calculated for patients overall, and then for patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/pulmonary disease separately. Next, two multinomial regression analyses were conducted to assess whether clinical processes, pre-admission diagnoses, and other demographic factors were related to oxygen use. Analysis 1 included patients not diagnosed with COPD/pulmonary disease. Analysis 2 included patients diagnosed with COPD/pulmonary disease. Results are reported as tallies, percentages, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. To assess adherence to a new medication guideline, the percentage of patients administered oxygen and dexamethasone was calculated for those admitted after 25 June 2020. The overall number of patients included in our SpO2 adherence analyses was 8751 (female = 4168). Oxygen was used within guideline specifications less than half the time, i.e. 41.6% (n = 3638/8751); non-adherence involving under-administering (3.5%, n = 304/8751) was markedly lower than over-administering (55.0%, n = 4809/8751). Adherence was higher for patients without COPD (43.7%, n = 3383/7741) than with COPD (25.2%, n = 255/1010). Under-administering was low across groups (non-COPD 3.5%, n = 274/7741 and COPD 2.9%, n = 30/1010). Over-administering was markedly lower for non-COPD (52.3%, n = 4084/7741) than COPD (71.8%, n = 725/1010) patients. Diagnoses associated with over-administering varied across the groups. Regarding the dexamethasone guidelines, of the 6397 patients admitted after the 24th of June, only 12.6% (n = 805) received dexamethasone. Suboptimal use of oxygen and medication were common during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. As found in previous studies, over-administering was more common than under-administering. The new guidelines issued during the COVID-19 pandemic were not by themselves sufficient to optimize oxygen use. Behavioural strategies are explored which may help policymakers optimize oxygen use.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicOxygenPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdultCOVID-19Critical CareCross-Sectional StudiesDexamethasoneFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsRetrospective StudiesRoutinely Collected Health DataDexamethasoneOxygenemergency careguidelineshealth policyintensive careoxygentraining/education

Identifiers

PMID37728256
PMCPMC10558040
OpenAlexW4386877926

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.