Uptake of service specific codes for the COVID oximetry @Home Pulse Oximetry service: an analysis of 57 million patients' primary care records using OpenSAFELY
Andrews, C. D.; Wood, C.; Fisher, L.; Curtis, H. J.; Hulme, W. J.; Mehrkar, A.; Smith, R. M.; Evans, D.; Ward, T.; Davy, S.; Inglesby, P.; Dillingham, I.; Maude, S.; O'Dwyer, T.; Butler-Cole, B. F.; Bridges, L.; Bates, C.; Cockburn, J.; O'Hanlon, S.; Avramov, D.; Jarvis, R.; Walker, A. J.; Goldacre, B.; The OpenSAFELY Collaborative, ; MacKenna, B.; Bacon, S. C.
Show abstract
BackgroundNHS England guidance was issued in November 2020 for use of COVID Oximetry @home (informally named CO@h) to detect early deterioration of patients with COVID-19 in primary and community care settings. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a retrospective cohort study between 4th October 2020 and 10th July 2021, using the primary care records for 57 million people registered at an English general practice. We identified patients with pulse oximetry coding (either specific CO@H codes or non-specific COPD005 codes) and described their characteristics. ResultsWe identified 18,473 individuals with a CO@h code, and 1,581,665 with a non-specific COPD005 code related to pulse oximetry. Recording of CO@h codes varied according to patient demographics, region and practice software system (58.3 per 100,000 in TPP vs 13.2 in EMIS). ConclusionOur study shows that whilst CO@h codes were used in GP records, use of less specific COPD005 codes instead of new SNOMED CT codes for CO@h may have persisted.
Matching journals
The top 5 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 94%
- Predictors of adverse outcome in patients with suspected COVID-19 managed in a ‘virtual hospital’ setting: a cohort study 94%
- What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- An observational study of survival outcomes of people referred for ‘fast-track’ end-of-life care funding in a District General Hospital; too little too late? 91%
- Interventions To Improve Patient Safety During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Hospital-wide Natural Language Processing summarising the health data of 1 million patients 94%
- Identification of physiological adverse events using continuous vital signs monitoring during paediatric critical care transport: a novel data-driven approach 92%
- Socioeconomic and demographic patterning of family uptake of a paediatric electronic patient portal innovation 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patterns of rates of mortality in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 92%
- LMIC-PRIEST: Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting 92%
- The challenges of replication: a worked example of methods reproducibility using routinely collected healthcare data 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 1: describing trends and variation in primary care clinical activity for 23.3 million patients in England during the first wave of COVID-19 97%
- Development and validation of a modified Cambridge Multimorbidity Score for use with internationally recognized electronic health record clinical terms (SNOMED CT) 92%
- Changes in General Practice use and costs with COVID-19 and telehealth initiatives 92%
"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.