Home-based initiatives for acute management of COVID-19 patients needing oxygen: differences across The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic new collaborative-care initiatives were developed for treating and monitoring COVID-19 patients with oxygen at home. Aim was to provide a structured overview focused on differences and similarities of initiatives of acute home-based management in the Netherlands. METHODS: Initiatives were eligible for evaluation if (i) COVID-19 patients received oxygen treatment at home; (ii) patients received structured remote monitoring; (iii) it was not an 'early hospital discharge' program; (iv) at least one patient was included. Protocols were screened, and additional information was obtained from involved physicians. Design choices were categorised into: eligible patient group, organization medical care, remote monitoring, nursing care, and devices used. RESULTS: Nine initiatives were screened for eligibility; five were included. Three initiatives included low-risk patients and two were designed specifically for frail patients. Emergency department (ED) visit for an initial diagnostic work-up and evaluation was mandatory in three initiatives before starting home management. Medical responsibility was either assigned to the general practitioner or hospital specialist, most often pulmonologist or internist. Pulse-oximetry was used in all initiatives, with additional monitoring of heart rate and respiratory rate in three initiatives. Remote monitoring staff's qualification and authority varied, and organization and logistics were covered by persons with various backgrounds. All initiatives offered remote monitoring via an application, two also offered a paper diary option. CONCLUSIONS: We observed differences in the organization of interprofessional collaboration for acute home management of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. All initiatives used pulse-oximetry and an app for remote monitoring. Our overview may be of help to healthcare providers and organizations to set up and implement similar acute home management initiatives for critical episodes of COVID-19 (or other acute disorders) that would otherwise require hospital care.

Starting Home Telemonitoring and Oxygen Therapy Directly after Emergency Department Assessment Appears to Be Safe in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Since data on the safety and effectiveness of home telemonitoring and oxygen therapy started directly after Emergency Department (ED) assessment in COVID-19 patients are sparse but could have many advantages, we evaluated these parameters in this study. METHODS: All COVID-19 patients ≥18 years eligible for receiving home telemonitoring (November 2020-February 2022, Albert Schweitzer hospital, the Netherlands) were included: patients started directly after ED assessment (ED group) or after hospital admission (admission group). Safety (number of ED reassessments and hospital readmissions) and effectiveness (number of phone calls, duration of oxygen usage and home telemonitoring) were described in both groups. RESULTS: 278 patients were included (n = 65 ED group, n = 213 admission group). ED group: 23.8% (n = 15) was reassessed, 15.9% (n = 10) was admitted and 7.7% (n = 5) ICU admitted. Admission group: 15.8% (n = 37) was reassessed, 6.5% (n = 14) was readmitted and 2.4% (n = 5) ICU (re)admitted. Ten patients died, of whom 7 due to COVID-19 (1 in ED group; 6 in the admission group). ED group: median duration of oxygen therapy was 9 (IQR 7-13) days; the total duration of home telemonitoring was 14 (IQR 9-18) days. Admission group: duration of oxygen therapy was 10 (IQR 6-16) days; total duration of home telemonitoring was 14 (IQR 10-20) days. CONCLUSION: it appears to be safe to start home telemonitoring and oxygen therapy directly after ED assessment.

The Effects of Low Pressure Domiciliary Non-Invasive Ventilation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Severe COPD Regardless Having Hypercapnia.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of non-invasive home ventilation in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is lacking. Non-invasive home ventilation might be more effective when high ventilator settings are used. However, high ventilator settings might reduce patient adherence. We have developed a multidisciplinary approach (ventilation practitioners, 24 hours support of respiratory nurses, physicians) to non-invasive ventilation aimed at optimizing patient adherence using low ventilator settings in severe COPD patients with high disease burden irrespectively having hypercapnia. METHODS: We included in a proof of concept, prospective interventional study, 48 GOLD stage III-IV COPD patients with a high disease burden (≥2 exacerbations in a year, and Medical Research Council dyspnea scores ≥3). Outcome measures included hospital admissions, capillary pCO2, Medical Research Council dyspnea scores (MRC), Clinical COPD Questionnaire scores (CCQ) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: After 1 year 32 patients could be evaluated. Hospital admissions decreased by 1.0 admission (mean difference ± SD: 1.0 ± 1.48; p = 0.001). In-hospital days decreased by 10.0 days (10.0 ± 15.48; p = 0.001). Capillary pCO2 decreased by 0.33 kPa (0.33 ± 0.81: p = 0.03). The MRC dyspnea score decreased by 0.66 (0.66 ± 1.35; p = 0.02). The CCQ score decreased by 0.59 (0.59 ± 1.39; p = 0.03). The HADS anxiety score decreased by 1.64 (1.64 ± 3.12; p = 0.01). The HADS depression score decreased by 1.64 (1.64 ± 3.91; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A proof of concept multidisciplinary approach, using low pressure domiciliary non-invasive ventilation, aimed at optimizing patient adherence in severe COPD patients regardless having hypercapnia, reduced hospital admissions and improved symptoms and quality of life measures. This may imply that severe COPD patients with high disease burden, irrespective being hypercapnic, are candidates to be treated with low pressure domiciliary non-invasive ventilation.