ABSTRACT
Context A surge of COVID cases globally is often portrayed as “very likely”, which overwhelms health systems and challenges their capacities. A mitigation strategy is seen by remotely monitoring COVID patients in out-of-hospital settings to determine the risk of deterioration. Description of the problem We need an indicator to enable remote monitoring of COVID patients at home that can be measured by a handy tool;pulse oximetry which measures peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). Evidence shows that SpO2 is a reliable indicator of deterioration among COVID patients. The UK initiated a national programme (COVID Oximetry @ Home (CO@H)) to assess the theory. The concept can be potentially applied in other countries in various settings. As part of CO@H, we conducted a systematic review of the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of pulse oximetry in remote monitoring of COVID patients. Results Our review confirms the safety and potential effectiveness of pulse oximetry in remote home monitoring among COVID patients. We identified 13 research projects involving 2,908 participants that assessed the proposed strategy. Evidence shows the need to monitor at-rest and post-exertional SpO2. At-rest SpO2 of ≤ 92% or a decrease of 5% or more in post-exertional SpO2 should indicate care escalation. The recommended method for measuring at-rest SpO2 is after 5-10 min of rest, and assessing post-exertional SpO2 is after conducting a 1-min sit-to-stand test. We could not find explicit evidence on the impact on health service use compared with other models of care. Lessons Remote monitoring of COVID patients could alleviate the pressure on health systems and save hospital resources. Monitoring SpO2 by pulse oximetry can be widely applied, including in resource-limited settings, as the tool is affordable, reliable, and easy to use. Key messages • Adopting relevant health technologies in remote patient monitoring is critical to combat the pandemic. • Pulse oximetry is an affordable, easy to use and widely available tool to monitor patients with COVID-19 at home.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
The Covid-19 mortality rate varies between countries and over time but the extent to which this is explained by the underlying risk in those infected is unclear. Using data on all adults in England with a positive Covid-19 test between 1st October 2020 and 30th April 2021 linked to clinical records, we examined trends and risk factors for hospital admission and mortality. Of 2,311,282 people included in the study, 164,046 (7.1%) were admitted and 53,156 (2.3%) died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test. We found significant variation in the case hospitalisation and mortality risk over time, which remained after accounting for the underlying risk of those infected. Older age groups, males, those resident in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation, and those with obesity had higher odds of admission and death. People with severe mental illness and learning disability had the highest odds of admission and death. Our findings highlight both the role of external factors in Covid-19 admission and mortality risk and the need for more proactive care in the most vulnerable groups.