Use of home pulse oximetry to enhance remote COVID-19 monitoring: Evaluating a single centre experience.
France, M. W.; Porter, A. H.; Bennett, C. J.; McCarthy, K. L.
Show abstract
IntroductionTelehealth and remote monitoring of patients of patients with mild COVID-19 infection have developed rapidly in response to the pandemic. Many healthcare systems have embraced telehealth for remote clinical monitoring and pulse oximetry for enhanced monitoring. MethodsThe experience of a large healthcare centres COVID Virtual Ward was reviewed retrospectively with a particular focus on evaluating the effectiveness, safety and utility of finger pulse oximetry within the home. Data from a 2 month period in early 2022 during a BA1 Omicron wave was retrospectively reviewed. 551 high risk patients were issued with pulse oximeters for monitoring oxygen saturations within their home. All patients received daily clinical review via telephone by a nurse or doctor. The group was highly vaccinated with only 6.4% of the cohort unvaccinated. Oximeters were promptly delivered via a courier service across a vast geographical area. ResultsPulse oximetry was well utilised by almost all patients. Only 2.7% of the cohort demonstrated resting oxygen saturations of <94% during their Virtual Ward admission. 91% of patients reporting dyspnoea were able to be safely managed without escalation to an emergency department due to reassuring clinical and oximetry assessment. Home oxygen saturations correlated well with saturations recorded within the ED, with no patients found to have lower saturations compared with home saturations. DiscussionWithin a high risk population experiencing COVID-19 infection, pulse oximetry was a useful tool in clinical assessment, correlated well with hospital-based pulse oximetry and allowed a substantial reduction in COVID-19 related ED presentations.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing the Safety of Home Oximetry for Covid-19: A multi-site retrospective observational study 97%
- Predictors of adverse outcome in patients with suspected COVID-19 managed in a ‘virtual hospital’ setting: a cohort study 96%
- Validating the RISE UP score for predicting prognosis in patients with COVID-19 in the emergency department, a retrospective study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Derivation and validation of a triage tool for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study 95%
- Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 95%
- LMIC-PRIEST: Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real World Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Various Clinical Settings 92%
- The Use of Procalcitonin as an Antimicrobial Stewardship Tool and a Predictor of Disease Severity in COVID-19 92%
- N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators Remain Effective After Extensive Reuse During the COVID-19 Pandemic 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Discriminatory ability of gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry to identify patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and predict prognosis 93%
- High proportion of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals 1-6 months after illness and association with disease severity in an outpatient telemedicine population 92%
- Diagnostic utility of a Ferritin-to-Procalcitonin Ratio to differentiate patients with COVID-19 from those with Bacterial Pneumonia: A multicenter study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 in East London: a retrospective cohort analysis 95%
- Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients 93%
- Two-way remote monitoring allows effective and realistic provision of home-NIV to COPD patients with persistent hypercapnia 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.