ArticleBMJ open2024
Evaluation of an outreach programme for patients with COVID-19 in an integrated healthcare delivery system: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems implemented programmes to manage outpatients with COVID-19. The goal was to expedite patients' referral to acute care and prevent overcrowding of medical centres. We sought to evaluate the impact of such a programme, the COVID-19 Home Care Team (CHCT) programme.
designRetrospective cohort.
settingKaiser Permanente Northern California.
participantsAdult members before COVID-19 vaccine availability (1 February 2020-31 January 2021) with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests.
interventionVirtual programme to track and treat patients with 'CHCT programme'. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were (1) COVID-19-related emergency department visit, (2) COVID-19-related hospitalisation and (3) inpatient mortality or 30-day hospice referral. MEASURES: We estimated the average effect comparing patients who were and were not treated by CHCT. We estimated propensity scores using an ensemble super learner (random forest, XGBoost, generalised additive model and multivariate adaptive regression splines) and augmented inverse probability weighting.
resultsThere were 98 585 patients with COVID-19. The majority were followed by CHCT (n=80 067, 81.2%). Patients followed by CHCT were older (mean age 43.9 vs 41.6 years, p<0.001) and more comorbid with COmorbidity Point Score, V.2, score ≥65 (1.7% vs 1.1%, p<0.001). Unadjusted analyses showed more COVID-19-related emergency department visits (9.5% vs 8.5%, p<0.001) and hospitalisations (3.9% vs 3.2%, p<0.001) in patients followed by CHCT but lower inpatient death or 30-day hospice referral (0.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.001). After weighting, there were higher rates of COVID-19-related emergency department visits (estimated intervention effect -0.8%, 95% CI -1.4% to -0.3%) and hospitalisation (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.9% to -0.1%) but lower inpatient mortality or 30-day hospice referral (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.3%) in patients followed by CHCT.
conclusionsDespite CHCT following older patients with higher comorbidity burden, there appeared to be a protective effect. Patients followed by CHCT were more likely to present to acute care and less likely to die inpatient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.