Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

DrAhmedAlboksmaty

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Casual - Other work
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

ahmed.alboksmaty17

 
 
//

Location

 

Dr. Foster Unit3 Dorset Rise, London EC4Y 8EN

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Beaney:2022:10.1136/emermed-2022-212378,
author = {Beaney, T and Clarke, J and Alboksmaty, A and Flott, K and Fowler, A and Benger, J and Aylin, P and Elkin, S and Neves, AL and Darzi, A},
doi = {10.1136/emermed-2022-212378},
journal = {Emergency Medicine Journal},
title = {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},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212378},
volume = {39},
year = {2022}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BackgroundTo 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.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre- 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 polymerase chain reaction test result from 1st October 2020 to 3rd 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 to 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.Results217,650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5,527 (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%-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. ConclusionAt 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
AU  - Beaney,T
AU  - Clarke,J
AU  - Alboksmaty,A
AU  - Flott,K
AU  - Fowler,A
AU  - Benger,J
AU  - Aylin,P
AU  - Elkin,S
AU  - Neves,AL
AU  - Darzi,A
DO  - 10.1136/emermed-2022-212378
PY  - 2022///
SN  - 1472-0205
TI  - 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
T2  - Emergency Medicine Journal
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-212378
UR  - https://emj.bmj.com/content/39/8/575
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/96213
VL  - 39
ER  -
Download