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.

Characteristics associated with influenza vaccination uptake in pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are at increased risk from influenza, yet maternal influenza vaccination levels remain suboptimal. AIM: To estimate associations between sociodemographic and health characteristics and seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among pregnant women, and to understand trends over time to inform interventions to improve vaccine coverage. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study using linked electronic health records of women in North West London with a pregnancy overlapping an influenza season between September 2010 and February 2020. METHOD: A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to identify associations between characteristics of interest and the primary outcome of influenza vaccination. RESULTS: In total, 451 954 pregnancies, among 260 744 women, were included. In 85 376 (18.9%) pregnancies women were vaccinated against seasonal influenza. Uptake increased from 8.4% in 2010/11 to 26.4% in 2017/18, dropping again to 21.1% in 2019/20. Uptake was lowest among women aged 15-19 years (11.9%; reference category) or ≥40 years (15.2%; odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 1.24); of Black (14.1%; OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.57) or unknown ethnicity (9.9%; OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.46); who lived in more deprived areas (OR least versus most deprived [reference category] 1.16, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.21); or with no known risk factors for severe influenza. CONCLUSION: Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in pregnant women increased in the decade before the COVID-19 pandemic, but remained suboptimal. Targeted approaches are recommended to reducing inequalities in access to vaccination and should focus on women of Black ethnicity, younger and older women, and women living in deprived areas.

Changing Patterns of Bloodstream Infections in the Community and Acute Care Across 2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic Waves: A Retrospective Analysis Using Data Linkage.

BACKGROUND: We examined community- and hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (BSIs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 patients across 2 epidemic waves. METHODS: We analyzed blood cultures of patients presenting to a London hospital group between January 2020 and February 2021. We reported BSI incidence, changes in sampling, case mix, healthcare capacity, and COVID-19 variants. RESULTS: We identified 1047 BSIs from 34 044 blood cultures, including 653 (62.4%) community-acquired and 394 (37.6%) hospital-acquired. Important pattern changes were seen. Community-acquired Escherichia coli BSIs remained below prepandemic level during COVID-19 waves, but peaked following lockdown easing in May 2020, deviating from the historical trend of peaking in August. The hospital-acquired BSI rate was 100.4 per 100 000 patient-days across the pandemic, increasing to 132.3 during the first wave and 190.9 during the second, with significant increase in elective inpatients. Patients with a hospital-acquired BSI, including those without COVID-19, experienced 20.2 excess days of hospital stay and 26.7% higher mortality, higher than reported in prepandemic literature. In intensive care, the BSI rate was 421.0 per 100 000 intensive care unit patient-days during the second wave, compared to 101.3 pre-COVID-19. The BSI incidence in those infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Alpha variant was similar to that seen with earlier variants. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic have impacted the patterns of community- and hospital-acquired BSIs, in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Factors driving the patterns are complex. Infection surveillance needs to consider key aspects of pandemic response and changes in healthcare practice.

Impact of COVID-19 on outpatient appointments in children and young people in England: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient appointments for children and young people. SETTING: All National Health Service (public) hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: All people in England aged <25 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outpatient department attendance numbers, rates and modes (face to face vs telephone) by age group, sex and socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: Compared with the average for January 2017 to December 2019, there was a 3.8 million appointment shortfall (23.5%) for the under-25 population in England between March 2020 and February 2021, despite a total rise in phone appointments of 2.6 million during that time. This was true for each age group, sex and deprivation fifth, but there were smaller decreases in face to face and total appointments for babies under 1 year. For all ages combined, around one in six first and one in four follow-up appointments were by phone in the most recent period. The proportion of appointments attended was high, at over 95% for telephone and over 90% for face-to-face appointments for all ages. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 led to a dramatic fall in total outpatient appointments and a large rise in the proportion of those appointments conducted by telephone. The impact that this has had on patient outcomes is still unknown. The differential impact of COVID-19 on outpatient activity in different sociodemographic groups may also inform design of paediatric outpatient services in the post-COVID period.

Patient outcomes following emergency admission to hospital for COVID-19 compared with influenza: retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We examine differences in posthospitalisation outcomes, and health system resource use, for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the UK's first pandemic wave in 2020, and influenza during 2018 and 2019. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used routinely collected primary and secondary care data. Outcomes, measured for 90 days follow-up after discharge were length of stay in hospital, mortality, emergency readmission and primary care activity. RESULTS: The study included 5132 patients admitted to hospital as an emergency, with COVID-19 and influenza cohorts comprising 3799 and 1333 patients respectively. Patients in the COVID-19 cohort were more likely to stay in hospital longer than 10 days (OR 3.91, 95% CI 3.14 to 4.65); and more likely to die in hospital (OR 11.85, 95% CI 8.58 to 16.86) and within 90 days of discharge (OR 7.92, 95% CI 6.20 to 10.25). For those who survived, rates of emergency readmission within 90 days were comparable between COVID-19 and influenza cohorts (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29), while primary care activity was greater among the COVID-19 cohort (incidence rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted for COVID-19 were more likely to die, more likely to stay in hospital for over 10 days and interact more with primary care after discharge, than patients admitted for influenza. However, readmission rates were similar for both groups. These findings, while situated in the context of the first wave of COVID-19, with the associated pressures on the health system, can inform health service planning for subsequent waves of COVID-19, and show that patients with COVID-19 interact more with healthcare services as well as having poorer outcomes than those with influenza.

Factors associated with, and variations in, COVID-19 hospital death rates in England's first two waves: observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess patient-level and hospital-level predictors of death and variation in death rates following admission for COVID-19 in England's first two waves after accounting for random variation. To quantify the correlation between hospitals' first and second wave death rates. DESIGN: Observational study using administrative data. SETTING: Acute non-specialist hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: In-hospital death. RESULTS: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data were extracted for all acute hospitals in England for COVID-19 admissions from March 2020 to March 2021. In wave 1 (March to July 2020), there were 74 484 admissions and 21 883 deaths (crude rate 29.4%); in wave 2 (August 2020 to March 2021), there were 165 642 admissions and 36 040 deaths (21.8%). Wave 2 patients were younger, with more hypertension and obesity but lower rates of other comorbidities. Mortality improved for all ages; in wave 2, it peaked in December 2020 at 24.2% (lower than wave 1's peak) but halved by March 2021. In multiple multilevel modelling combining HES with hospital-level data from Situational Reports, wave 2 and wave 1 variables significantly associated with death were mostly the same. The median odds ratio for wave 1 was just 1.05 and for wave 2 was 1.07. At 99.8% control limits, 3% of hospitals were high and 7% were low funnel plot outliers in wave 1; these figures were 9% and 12% for wave 2. Four hospitals were (low) outliers in both waves. The correlation between hospitals' adjusted mortality rates between waves was 0.45 (p<0.0001). Length of stay was similar in each wave. CONCLUSIONS: England's first two COVID-19 waves were similar regarding predictors and moderate interhospital variation. Despite the challenges, variation in death rates and length of stay between hospitals was modest and might be accounted for by unobserved patient factors.

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.

The use of, and outcomes for, inflammatory bowel disease services during the Covid-19 pandemic: a nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) services have been particularly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Delays in referral to secondary care and access to investigations and surgery have been exacerbated. AIMS: To investigate the use of and outcomes for emergency IBD care during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: Nationwide observational study using administrative data for England (2015-2020) comparing cohorts admitted from 1 January 2015, to 31 January 2020 (pre-pandemic) and from 1 February 2020, to 31 January 2021 (pandemic). Autoregressive integrated moving average forecast models were run to estimate the counterfactual IBD admissions and procedures for February 2020 to January 2021. RESULTS: Large decreases in attendances to hospital for emergency treatment were observed for both acute ulcerative colitis (UC, 16.4%) and acute Crohn's disease (CD, 8.7%). The prevalence of concomitant Covid-19 during the same episode was low [391/16 494 (2.4%) and 349/15 613 (2.2%), respectively]. No significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed. A shorter median length of stay by 1 day for acute IBD admissions was observed (P < 0.0001). A higher rate of emergency readmission within 28 days for acute UC was observed (14.1% vs 13.4%, P = 0.012). All IBD procedures and investigations showed decreases in volume from February 2020 to January 2021 compared with counterfactual estimates. The largest absolute deficit was in endoscopy (17 544 fewer procedures, 35.2% reduction). CONCLUSION: There is likely a significant burden of untreated IBD in the community. Patients with IBD may experience clinical harm or protracted decreases in quality of life if care is not prioritised.

Quality Social Connection as an Active Ingredient in Digital Interventions for Young People With Depression and Anxiety: Systematic Scoping Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Disrupted social connections may negatively affect youth mental health. In contrast, sustained quality social connections (QSCs) can improve mental health outcomes. However, few studies have examined how these quality connections affect depression and anxiety outcomes within digital interventions, and conceptualization is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conceptualize, appraise, and synthesize evidence on QSC within digital interventions (D-QSC) and the impact on depression and anxiety outcomes for young people aged 14-24 years. METHODS: A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological frameworks and guided by experts with lived experience. Reporting was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched against a comprehensive combination of key concepts on June 24, 2020. The search concepts included young people, digital intervention, depression, anxiety, and social connection. Google was also searched. A reviewer independently screened abstracts and titles and full text, and 9.99% (388/3882) of these were screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was used to structure the findings on indicators of D-QSC and mechanisms that facilitate the connection. Indicators of D-QSC from the included studies were synthesized to produce a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Of the 5715 publications identified, 42 (0.73%) were included. Among the included studies, there were 23,319 participants. Indicators that D-QSC was present varied and included relatedness, having a sense of belonging, and connecting to similar people. However, despite the variation, most of the indicators were associated with improved outcomes for depression and anxiety. Negative interactions, loneliness, and feeling ignored indicated that D-QSC was not present. In 24% (10/42) of the applicable studies, a meta-analysis showed a significant decrease in depression (-25.6%, 95% CI -0.352 to -0.160; P<.001) and anxiety (-15.1%, 95% CI -0.251 to -0.051; P=.003) after a D-QSC. Digital mechanisms that helped create a quality connection included anonymity, confidentiality, and peer support. In contrast, mechanisms that hindered the connection included disconnection from the real world and inability to see body language. Data synthesis also identified a 5-component conceptual framework of D-QSC that included rapport, identity and commonality, valued interpersonal dynamic, engagement, and responded to and accepted. CONCLUSIONS: D-QSC is an important and underconsidered component for youth depression and anxiety outcomes. Researchers and developers should consider targeting improved QSC between clinicians and young people within digital interventions for depression. Future research should build on our framework to further examine relationships among individual attributes of QSC, various digital interventions, and different populations.

Management and patient safety of complex elderly patients in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK-Qualitative assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to investigate GPs' experiences of how UK COVID-19 policies have affected the management and safety of complex elderly patients, who suffer from multimorbidity, at the primary care level in North West London (NWL). DESIGN: This is a service evaluation adopting a qualitative approach. SETTING: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between 6 and 22 May 2020, 2 months after the introduction of the UK COVID-19 Action Plan, allowing GPs to adapt to the new changes and reflect on their impact. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen GPs working in NWL were interviewed, until data saturation was reached. OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of COVID-19 policies on the management and safety of complex elderly patients in primary care from the GPs' perspective. RESULTS: Participants' average experience was fourteen years working in primary care for the NHS. They stated that COVID-19 policies have affected primary care at three levels, patients' behaviour, work conditions, and clinical practice. GPs reflected on the impact through five major themes; four of which have been adapted from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) framework, changes in primary care (at the three levels mentioned above), involvement of GPs in policy making, communication and coordination (with patients and in between medical teams), stressors and worries; in addition to a fifth theme to conclude the GPs' suggestions for improvement (either proposed mitigation strategies, or existing actions that showed relative success). A participant used an expression of "infodemic" to describe the GPs' everyday pressure of receiving new policy updates with their subsequent changes in practice. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all levels of the health system in the UK, particularly primary care. Based on the GPs' perspective in NWL, changes to practice have offered opportunities to maintain safe healthcare as well as possible drawbacks that should be of concern.

Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Multiethnic London National Health Service Trust: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Detailed clinical analyses of multicultural hospitalized patient cohorts remain largely undescribed. METHODS: We performed regression, survival, and cumulative competing risk analyses to evaluate factors associated with mortality in patients admitted for COVID-19 in 3 large London hospitals between 25 February and 5 April, censored as of 1 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 614 patients (median age, 69 [interquartile range, 25] years) and 62% male), 381 (62%) were discharged alive, 178 (29%) died, and 55 (9%) remained hospitalized at censoring. Severe hypoxemia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.25 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.36-7.64]), leukocytosis (aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.35-4.11]), thrombocytopenia (aOR [1.01, 95% CI, 1.00-1.01], increase per 109 decrease), severe renal impairment (aOR, 5.14 [95% CI, 2.65-9.97]), and low albumin (aOR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.09], increase per gram decrease) were associated with death. Forty percent (n = 244) were from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic (BAME) groups, 38% (n = 235) were white, and ethnicity was unknown for 22% (n = 135). BAME patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities. Although the unadjusted odds of death did not differ by ethnicity, when adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, black patients were at higher odds of death compared to whites (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.00-2.86]). This association was stronger when further adjusting for admission severity (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.06-3.24]). CONCLUSIONS: BAME patients were overrepresented in our cohort; when accounting for demographic and clinical profile of admission, black patients were at increased odds of death. Further research is needed into biologic drivers of differences in COVID-19 outcomes by ethnicity.

Socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity inequalities in disruption to NHS hospital admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital admissions in many countries fell dramatically at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Less is known about how care patterns differed by patient groups. We sought to determine whether areas with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation or larger ethnic minority populations saw larger falls in emergency and planned admissions in England. METHODS: We conducted a national observational study of hospital care in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2019-2020. Weekly volumes of elective (planned) and emergency admissions in 2020 compared with 2019 were calculated for each census area. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the reductions in volumes for areas in different quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation and ethnic minority populations after controlling for national time trends and local area composition. RESULTS: Between March and December 2020, there were 35.5% (3.0 million) fewer elective admissions and 22.0% (1.2 million) fewer emergency admissions with a non-COVID-19 primary diagnosis than in 2019. Areas with the largest share of ethnic minority populations experienced a 36.7% (95% CI 24.1% to 49.3%) larger reduction in non-primary COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with those with the smallest. The most deprived areas experienced a 10.1% (95% CI 2.6% to 17.7%) smaller reduction in non-COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with the least deprived. These patterns are not explained by differential prevalence of COVID-19 cases by area. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a healthcare system founded on the principle of equal access for equal need, the impact of COVID-19 on NHS hospital care for non-COVID patients has not been spread evenly by ethnicity and deprivation in England. While we cannot conclusively determine the mechanisms behind these differences, they risk exacerbating prepandemic health inequalities.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patterns of attendance at emergency departments in two large London hospitals: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals in England have undergone considerable change to address the surge in demand imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this on emergency department (ED) attendances is unknown, especially for non-COVID-19 related emergencies. METHODS: This analysis is an observational study of ED attendances at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHNT). We calibrated auto-regressive integrated moving average time-series models of ED attendances using historic (2015-2019) data. Forecasted trends were compared to present year ICHNT data for the period between March 12, 2020 (when England implemented the first COVID-19 public health measure) and May 31, 2020. We compared ICHTN trends with publicly available regional and national data. Lastly, we compared hospital admissions made via the ED and in-hospital mortality at ICHNT during the present year to the historic 5-year average. RESULTS: ED attendances at ICHNT decreased by 35% during the period after the first lockdown was imposed on March 12, 2020 and before May 31, 2020, reflecting broader trends seen for ED attendances across all England regions, which fell by approximately 50% for the same time frame. For ICHNT, the decrease in attendances was mainly amongst those aged < 65 years and those arriving by their own means (e.g. personal or public transport) and not correlated with any of the spatial dependencies analysed such as increasing distance from postcode of residence to the hospital. Emergency admissions of patients without COVID-19 after March 12, 2020 fell by 48%; we did not observe a significant change to the crude mortality risk in patients without COVID-19 (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.94-1.37, p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings reflect broader trends seen across England and give an indication how emergency healthcare seeking has drastically changed. At ICHNT, we find that a larger proportion arrived by ambulance and that hospitalisation outcomes of patients without COVID-19 did not differ from previous years. The extent to which these findings relate to ED avoidance behaviours compared to having sought alternative emergency health services outside of hospital remains unknown. National analyses and strategies to streamline emergency services in England going forward are urgently needed.

Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Effectiveness Through the North West London Vaccination Program: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19, as a pandemic. The UK mass vaccination program commenced on December 8, 2020, vaccinating groups of the population deemed to be most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the early vaccine administration coverage and outcome data across an integrated care system in North West London, leveraging a unique population-level care data set. Vaccine effectiveness of a single dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were compared. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified 2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID-19 vaccination between December 8, 2020, and February 24, 2021, within a primary, secondary, and community care integrated care data set. These data were used to assess vaccination hesitancy across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic deprivation measures (Pearson product-moment correlations); investigate COVID-19 transmission related to vaccination hubs; and assess the early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination (after a single dose) using time-to-event analyses with multivariable Cox regression analysis to investigate if vaccination independently predicted positive SARS-CoV-2 in those vaccinated compared to those unvaccinated. RESULTS: In this study, 5.88% (24,332/413,919) of individuals declined and did not receive a vaccination. Black or Black British individuals had the highest rate of declining a vaccine at 16.14% (4337/26,870). There was a strong negative association between socioeconomic deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=-0.94; P=.002) with 13.5% (1980/14,571) of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived areas compared to 0.98% (869/9609) in the least. In the first 6 days after vaccination, 344 of 389,587 (0.09%) individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The rate increased to 0.13% (525/389,243) between days 7 and 13, before then gradually falling week on week. At 28 days post vaccination, there was a 74% (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.35) and 78% (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.27) reduction in risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for individuals that received the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals. A very low proportion of hospital admissions were seen in vaccinated individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (288/389,587, 0.07% of all patients vaccinated) providing evidence for vaccination effectiveness after a single dose. CONCLUSIONS: There was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during the vaccine administration rollout in North West London, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized after vaccination has been demonstrated to be low in the vaccinated population. This study provides further evidence that a single dose of either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 up to 60 days across all age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population.

Patient-level and hospital-level variation and related time trends in COVID-19 case fatality rates during the first pandemic wave in England: multilevel modelling analysis of routine data.

BACKGROUND: A report suggesting large between-hospital variations in mortality after admission for COVID-19 in England attracted much media attention but used crude rates. We aimed to quantify these variations between hospitals and over time during England's first wave (March to July 2020) and assess available patient-level and hospital-level predictors to explain those variations. METHODS: We used administrative data for England, augmented by hospital-level information. Admissions were extracted with COVID-19 codes. In-hospital death was the primary outcome. Risk-adjusted mortality ratios (standardised mortality ratios) and interhospital variation were calculated using multilevel logistic regression. Early-wave (March to April) and late-wave (May to July) periods were compared. RESULTS: 74 781 admissions had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19, with 21 984 in-hospital deaths (29.4%); the 30-day total mortality rate was 28.8%. The crude in-hospital death rate fell in all ages and overall from 32.9% in March to 13.4% in July. Patient-level predictors included age, male gender, non-white ethnic group (early period only) and several comorbidities (obesity early period only). The only significant hospital-level predictor was daily COVID-19 admissions in the late period; we did not find a relation with staff absences for COVID-19, mechanical ventilation bed occupancies, total bed occupancies or bed occupancies for COVID-19 admissions in either period. Just 4 (3%) and 2 (2%) hospitals were high, and 5 (4%) and 0 hospitals were low funnel plot mortality outliers at 3 SD for early and late periods, respectively, after risk adjustment. We found no strong correlation between early and late hospital-level mortality (r=0.17, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There was modest variation in mortality following admission for COVID-19 between English hospitals after adjustment for risk and random variation, in marked contrast to early media reports. Early-period mortality did not predict late-period mortality.

The J-IDEA Pandemic Planner: A Framework for Implementing Hospital Provision Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Planning for extreme surges in demand for hospital care of patients requiring urgent life-saving treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while retaining capacity for other emergency conditions, is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health care providers and policymakers during the pandemic. Health systems must be well-prepared to cope with large and sudden changes in demand by implementing interventions to ensure adequate access to care. We developed the first planning tool for the COVID-19 pandemic to account for how hospital provision interventions (such as cancelling elective surgery, setting up field hospitals, or hiring retired staff) will affect the capacity of hospitals to provide life-saving care. METHODS: We conducted a review of interventions implemented or considered in 12 European countries in March to April 2020, an evaluation of their impact on capacity, and a review of key parameters in the care of COVID-19 patients. This information was used to develop a planner capable of estimating the impact of specific interventions on doctors, nurses, beds, and respiratory support equipment. We applied this to a scenario-based case study of 1 intervention, the set-up of field hospitals in England, under varying levels of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics pandemic planner is a hospital planning tool that allows hospital administrators, policymakers, and other decision-makers to calculate the amount of capacity in terms of beds, staff, and crucial medical equipment obtained by implementing the interventions. Flexible assumptions on baseline capacity, the number of hospitalizations, staff-to-beds ratios, and staff absences due to COVID-19 make the planner adaptable to multiple settings. The results of the case study show that while field hospitals alleviate the burden on the number of beds available, this intervention is futile unless the deficit of critical care nurses is addressed first. DISCUSSION: The tool supports decision-makers in delivering a fast and effective response to the pandemic. The unique contribution of the planner is that it allows users to compare the impact of interventions that change some or all inputs.

CCopeY: A Mixed-Methods Coproduced Study on the Mental Health Status and Coping Strategies of Young People During COVID-19 UK Lockdown.

PURPOSE: Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people's mental health is an increasing priority. Studies to date are largely surveys and lack meaningful involvement from service users in their design, planning, and delivery. The study aimed to examine the mental health status and coping strategies of young people during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown using coproduction methodology. METHODS: The mental health status of young people (aged 16-24) in April 2020 was established utilizing a sequential explanatory coproduced mixed methods design. Factors associated with poor mental health status, including coping strategies, were also examined using an online survey and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Since the lockdown, 30.3% had poor mental health, and 10.8% had self-harmed. Young people identifying as Black/Black-British ethnicity had the highest increased odds of experiencing poor mental health (odds ratio [OR] 3.688, 95% CI .54-25.40). Behavioral disengagement (OR 1.462, 95% CI 1.22-1.76), self-blame (OR 1.307 95% CI 1.10-1.55), and substance use (OR 1.211 95% CI 1.02-1.44) coping strategies, negative affect (OR 1.109, 95% CI 1.07-1.15), sleep problems (OR .915 95% CI .88-.95) and conscientiousness personality trait (OR .819 95% CI .69-.98) were significantly associated with poor mental health. Three qualitative themes were identified: (1) pre-existing/developed helpful coping strategies employed, (2) mental health difficulties worsened, and (3) mental health and nonmental health support needed during and after lockdown. CONCLUSION: Poor mental health is associated with dysfunctional coping strategies. Innovative coping strategies can help other young people cope during and after lockdowns, with digital and school promotion and application.