Effectiveness and safety of pulse oximetry in remote patient monitoring of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led health systems to increase the use of tools for monitoring and triaging patients remotely. In this systematic review, we aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pulse oximetry in remote patient monitoring (RPM) of patients at home with COVID-19. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) from database inception to April 15, 2021, and included feasibility studies, clinical trials, and observational studies, including preprints. We found 561 studies, of which 13 were included in our narrative synthesis. These 13 studies were all observational cohorts and involved a total of 2908 participants. A meta-analysis was not feasible owing to the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported in the included studies. Our systematic review substantiates the safety and potential of pulse oximetry for monitoring patients at home with COVID-19, identifying the risk of deterioration and the need for advanced care. The use of pulse oximetry can potentially save hospital resources for patients who might benefit the most from care escalation; however, we could not identify explicit evidence for the effect of RPM with pulse oximetry on health outcomes compared with other monitoring models such as virtual wards, regular monitoring consultations, and online or paper diaries to monitor changes in symptoms and vital signs. Based on our findings, we make 11 recommendations across the three Donabedian model domains and highlight three specific measurements for setting up an RPM system with pulse oximetry.

Factors associated with enrolment into a national COVID-19 pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme in England: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxaemia is an important predictor of severity in individuals with COVID-19 and can present without symptoms. The COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h) programme was implemented across England in November, 2020, providing pulse oximeters to higher-risk people with COVID-19 to enable early detection of deterioration and the need for escalation of care. We aimed to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of individuals enrolled onto the programme and to assess whether there were any inequalities in enrolment. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was based on data from a cohort of people resident in England recorded as having a positive COVID-19 test between Oct 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021. The proportion of participants enrolled onto the CO@h programmes in the 7 days before and 28 days after a positive COVID-19 test was calculated for each clinical commissioning group (CCG) in England. Two-level hierarchical multivariable logistic regression with random intercepts for each CCG was run to identify factors predictive of being enrolled onto the CO@h programme. FINDINGS: CO@h programme sites were reported by NHS England as becoming operational between Nov 21 and Dec 31, 2020. 1 227 405 people resident in 72 CCGs had a positive COVID-19 test between the date of programme implementation and May 3, 2021, of whom 19 932 (1·6%) were enrolled onto the CO@h programme. Of those enrolled, 14 441 (72·5%) were aged 50 years or older or were identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (ie, having a high-risk medical condition). Higher odds of enrolment onto the CO@h programme were found in older individuals (adjusted odds ratio 2·21 [95% CI 2·19-2·23], p<0·001, for those aged 50-64 years; 3·48 [3·33-3·63], p<0·001, for those aged 65-79 years; and 2·50 [2·34-2·68], p<0·001, for those aged ≥80 years), in individuals of non-White ethnicity (1·35 [1·28-1·43], p<0·001, for Asian individuals; 1·13 [1·04-1·22], p=0·005, for Black individuals; and 1·17 [1·03-1·32], p=0·015, for those of mixed ethnicity), in those who were overweight (1·31 [1·26-1·37], p<0·001) or obese (1·69 [1·63-1·77], p<0·001), or in those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (1·58 [1·51-1·65], p<0·001), and lower odds were reported in those from the least socioeconomically deprived areas compared with those from the most socioeconomically deprived areas (0·75 [0·69-0·81]; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: Nationally, uptake of the CO@h programme was low, with clinical judgment used to determine eligibility. Preferential enrolment onto the pulse oximetry monitoring programme was observed in people known to be at the highest risk of developing severe COVID-19. FUNDING: NHS England, National Institute for Health Research, and The Wellcome Trust.

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.

BACKGROUND: To 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). METHODS: We 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. 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% 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. CONCLUSIONS: These 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.

Recovering from COVID-19: lessons learnt from an intensive secondary care follow-up service.

In response to the first COVID-19 surge in 2020, secondary care outpatient services were rapidly reconfigured to provide specialist review for disease sequelae. At our institution, comprising hospitals across three sites in London, we initially implemented a COVID-19 follow-up pathway that was in line with expert opinion at the time but more intensive than initial clinical guidelines suggested. We retrospectively evaluated the resource requirements for this service, which supported 526 patients from April 2020 to October 2020. At the 6-week review, 193/403 (47.9%) patients reported persistent breathlessness, 46/336 (13.7%) desaturated on exercise testing, 167/403 (41.4%) were discharged from COVID-19-related secondary care services and 190/403 (47.1%) needed 12-week follow-up. At the 12-week review, 113/309 (36.6%) patients reported persistent breathlessness, 30/266 (11.3%) desaturated on exercise testing and 150/309 (48.5%) were discharged from COVID-19-related secondary care services. Referrals were generated to multiple medical specialties, particularly respiratory subspecialties. Our analysis allowed us to justify rationalising and streamlining provisions for subsequent COVID-19 waves while reassured that opportunities for early intervention were not being missed.

An online breathing and wellbeing programme (ENO Breathe) for people with persistent symptoms following COVID-19: a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are few evidence-based interventions for long COVID; however, holistic approaches supporting recovery are advocated. We assessed whether an online breathing and wellbeing programme improves health related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in people with persisting breathlessness following COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in patients who had been referred from one of 51 UK-based collaborating long COVID clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; were recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing breathlessness, with or without anxiety, at least 4 weeks after symptom onset; had internet access with an appropriate device; and were deemed clinically suitable for participation by one of the collaborating COVID-19 clinics. Following clinical assessment, potential participants were given a unique online portal code. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either immediate participation in the English National Opera (ENO) Breathe programme or to usual care. Randomisation was done by the research team using computer-generated block randomisation lists, with block size 10. The researcher responsible for randomisation was masked to responses. Participants in the ENO Breathe group participated in a 6-week online breathing and wellbeing programme, developed for people with long COVID experiencing breathlessness, focusing on breathing retraining using singing techniques. Those in the deferred group received usual care until they exited the trial. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was change in HRQoL, assessed using the RAND 36-item short form survey instrument mental health composite (MHC) and physical health composite (PHC) scores. Secondary outcome measures were the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test score, visual analogue scales (VAS) for breathlessness, and scores on the dyspnoea-12, the generalised anxiety disorder 7-item scale, and the short form-6D. A thematic analysis exploring participant experience was also conducted using qualitative data from focus groups, survey responses, and email correspondence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04830033. FINDINGS: Between April 22 and May 25, 2021, 158 participants were recruited and randomly assigned. Of these, eight (5%) individuals were excluded and 150 participants were allocated to a treatment group (74 in the ENO Breathe group and 76 in the usual care group). Compared with usual care, ENO Breathe was associated with an improvement in MHC score (regression coefficient 2·42 [95% CI 0·03 to 4·80]; p=0·047), but not PHC score (0·60 [-1·33 to 2·52]; p=0·54). VAS for breathlessness (running) favoured ENO Breathe participation (-10·48 [-17·23 to -3·73]; p=0·0026). No other statistically significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes were observed. One minor self-limiting adverse event was reported by a participant in the ENO Breathe group who felt dizzy using a computer for extended periods. Thematic analysis of ENO Breathe participant experience identified three key themes: (1) improvements in symptoms; (2) feeling that the programme was complementary to standard care; and (3) the particular suitability of singing and music to address their needs. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that an online breathing and wellbeing programme can improve the mental component of HRQoL and elements of breathlessness in people with persisting symptoms after COVID-19. Mind-body and music-based approaches, including practical, enjoyable, symptom-management techniques might have a role supporting recovery. FUNDING: Imperial College London.

Population-level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with COVID-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design.

BACKGROUND: To identify the population-level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h)) in England on mortality and health service use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre-implementation and post-implementation design, including all 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. All symptomatic people with a positive COVID-19 PCR test result from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021, and who were aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable were included. Care home residents were excluded. A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared with a post-intervention period after implementation. Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test: (i) death from any cause; (ii) any ED attendance; (iii) any emergency hospital admission; (iv) critical care admission and (v) total length of hospital stay. RESULTS: 217 650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. The period of implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. The period of implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of ED attendance (95% CI: 6% to 18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5% to 20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5% to 47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: At a population level, there was no association with mortality before and after the implementation period of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. However, lower than expected enrolment is likely to have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.

Assessing the safety of home oximetry for COVID-19: a multisite retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and effectiveness of home oximetry monitoring pathways for patients with COVID-19 in the English National Health Service. DESIGN: Retrospective, multisite, observational study of home oximetry monitoring for patients with suspected or proven COVID-19. SETTING: This study analysed patient data from four COVID-19 home oximetry pilot sites in England across primary and secondary care settings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1338 participants were enrolled in a home oximetry programme across four pilot sites. Participants were excluded if primary care data and oxygen saturations at rest at enrolment were not available. Data from 908 participants were included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Home oximetry monitoring was provided to participants with a known or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants were enrolled following attendance to emergency departments, hospital admission or referral through primary care services. RESULTS: Of 908 patients enrolled into four different COVID-19 home oximetry programmes in England, 771 (84.9%) had oxygen saturations at rest of 95% or more, and 320 (35.2%) were under 65 years of age and without comorbidities. 52 (5.7%) presented to hospital and 28 (3.1%) died following enrolment, of which 14 (50%) had COVID-19 as a named cause of death. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients enrolled after admission to hospital (OR 8.70 (2.53-29.89)), compared with those enrolled in primary care. Patients enrolled after hospital discharge (OR 0.31 (0.15-0.68)) or emergency department presentation (OR 0.42 (0.20-0.89)) were significantly less likely to present to hospital than those enrolled in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that home oximetry monitoring can be a safe pathway for patients with COVID-19; and indicates increases in risk to vulnerable groups and patients with oxygen saturations <95% at enrolment, and in those enrolled on discharge from hospital. Findings from this evaluation have contributed to the national implementation of home oximetry across England.

Educational opportunities for postgraduate medical trainees during the COVID-19 pandemic: deriving value from old, new and emerging ways of learning.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on postgraduate medical training across all specialties. Although some traditional learning opportunities have been curtailed, there have been numerous examples of highly valuable educational experiences that have arisen during this time. Here, from a trainee perspective, we consider the educational merits of the re-emergence of 'firm-based' teams, new online learning opportunities, use of digital technologies and the rise of telephone clinics and new COVID-19 clinical services. As health services continue to recover from surges in COVID-19 cases, it is important to reflect on and recognise the value of these educational experiences so that helpful elements can be retained and embedded into training programmes for the benefit of both trainees and patients.

Symptomatic, biochemical and radiographic recovery in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms, radiography, biochemistry and healthcare utilisation of patients with COVID-19 following discharge from hospital have not been well described. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 401 adult patients attending a clinic following an index hospital admission or emergency department attendance with COVID-19. Regression models were used to assess the association between characteristics and persistent abnormal chest radiographs or breathlessness. RESULTS: 75.1% of patients were symptomatic at a median of 53 days post discharge and 72 days after symptom onset and chest radiographs were abnormal in 47.4%. Symptoms and radiographic abnormalities were similar in PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients. Severity of COVID-19 was significantly associated with persistent radiographic abnormalities and breathlessness. 18.5% of patients had unscheduled healthcare visits in the 30 days post discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and abnormal blood biomarkers with a gradual resolution of radiological abnormalities over time. These findings can inform patients and clinicians about expected recovery times and plan services for follow-up of patients with COVID-19.

Respiratory specialists working in different ways: Development of a GP hotline and respiratory support service during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Integration of primary and secondary care for the management of respiratory disease is a long-held ambition. Here, we describe how respiratory specialists at a large NHS trust, working with primary care clinicians in the area, set up a GP hotline and respiratory support service in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of enhancing delivery of care to patients in this unprecedented time. Working across traditional organisational boundaries in this way confers benefits to patients and clinicians, illustrating the value of new, integrated models of care.