RESUMO
BackgroundThe Covid-19 case fatality ratio varies between countries and over time but it is unclear whether variation is explained by the underlying risk in those infected. This study aims to describe the trends and risk factors for admission and mortality rates over time in England. MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we included all adults ([≥]18 years) in England with a positive Covid-19 test result between 1st October 2020 and 30th April 2021. Data were linked to primary and secondary care electronic health records and death registrations. Our outcomes were i) one or more emergency hospital admissions and ii) death from any cause, within 28 days of a positive test. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression was used to model each outcome with patient risk factors and time. Results2,311,282 people were included in the study, of whom 164,046 (7.1%) were admitted and 53,156 (2.3%) died within 28 days. There was significant variation in the case hospitalisation and mortality risk over time, peaking in December 2020-February 2021, which remained after adjustment for individual risk factors. Older age groups, males, those resident in more deprived areas, and those with obesity had higher odds of admission and mortality. Of risk factors examined, severe mental illness and learning disability had the highest odds of admission and mortality. ConclusionsIn one of the largest studies of nationally representative Covid-19 risk factors, case hospitalisation and mortality risk varied significantly over time in England during the second pandemic wave, independent of the underlying risk in those infected.
RESUMO
ObjectivesTo 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. DesignRetrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre- and post-implementation design. SettingAll Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. Participants217,650 people with a positive covid-19 polymerase chain reaction test result and symptomatic, from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021, aged [≥]65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable. Care home residents were excluded. InterventionsA pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared to a post-intervention period after implementation. Main outcome measuresFive outcome measures within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test: i) death from any cause; ii) any A&E attendance; iii) any emergency hospital admission; iv) critical care admission; and v) total length of hospital stay. ResultsImplementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. Implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of A&E attendance (95% CI: 6%-18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5%-20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5%-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. However, uptake of the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5,527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. ConclusionsAt a population level, there was no association with mortality following implementation of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. Low enrolment of eligible people may have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.
RESUMO
ObjectivesTo identify the impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for covid-19 (COVID Oximetry @home; CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments. DesignRetrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from A&E. SettingNational Health Service (NHS) A&E departments in England. ParticipantsAll patients with a positive covid-19 test from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021 who attended A&E from three days before to ten days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first A&E attendance within the time window were excluded. InterventionsParticipants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled. Main outcome measuresFive outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first A&E attendance: i) death from any cause; ii) any subsequent A&E attendance; iii) any emergency hospital admission; iv) critical care admission; and v) length of stay. Results15,621 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%-75% lower) compared to those not enrolled on CO@h. Odds of any A&E attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI: 16-63%) and 59% (95% CI: 16-63%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI: 7%-76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay. ConclusionsThese findings indicate that for patients assessed in A&E, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation, leading to increased subsequent A&E attendance and admissions, and reduced critical care requirement and mortality.
