Abstract
Objectives To assess the short run successes and challenges of the implementation of a digitally supported accelerated acute hospital discharge scheme for patients admitted with Covid-19.
Design Analysis of the safety, resource use and health outcomes within the virtual service for the first 65 patients that have been discharged from a virtual respiratory ward.
Setting Community based intervention using digital technology and a multi-disciplinary team of specialist clinicians to monitor patients at home.
Participants 65 patients discharged from hospital followed until discharge from the virtual ward.
Results 24.6% of 65 patients had symptoms that were coded red (urgent response required) in CliniTouch Vie in the first day after hospital discharge falling to 7.7% on their final day on the virtual ward; p=0.049. Reductions in red days decreased significantly over time, from 33.8% of patients in their first three days to 10.8% in their final three days; all patients p=0.002. Four patients were re-admitted to hospital, all for clotting disorders. There was one death within this group, which following senior clinical review was deemed to be unrelated to infection with Covid-19.
The most important gain for Glenfield hospital was in expediting the rapid discharge of patients admitted with Covid-19 into a supported environment and the freeing up of beds. On 15th January, 48% of beds were taken up with patients admitted with Covid-19 symptoms.
In November 2020, immediately prior to the launch of the virtual ward, the mean length of stay for patients who did not access high dependency care or oxygen was 5.5 (+/-1.3) days. The mean length of stay in patients discharged into the virtual ward thereafter was 3.3 (+/-0.4) days; relative reduction, 40.3% (p<0.001).
The cost of care provision in the virtual ward was 8,662 UK Pounds in total and 133.26 UK pounds per patient. The estimated overall savings were 68,052 UK Pounds and the mean saving per patient was estimated at £1,047 UK Pounds.
Conclusions The virtual ward appeared to assist with earlier discharges, had a low rate of clinically necessary re-admissions, the safety of patients was not compromised and whilst cost savings were not the primary objective, it seemed to also reduce overall resource use and costs.
Competing Interest Statement
Swift J, OKelly NI, Barker C all work for Spirit Health Group, owners of the intellectual property associated with CliniTouch Vie. All have a potential conflict of interest. Harris Z, Woodward A and Ghosh S have no declaration of interest to declare. The virtual ward implementation project was supported by Ageing Well funding. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Spirit Health Group, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust or Leicester School of Allied Health Sciences, De Montford University.
Clinical Trial
This was a was a service evaluation, not a clinical trial
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for the preparation of this manuscript. Swift J, O'Kelly NI and Barker C all work for the Spirit Health Group and as outlined in the competing interests section have a potential conflict of interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All patients gave their informed consent to the use of their anonymised data for research purposes. The evaluation proposal was submitted to Local IRB East Midlands CENTRAL Leicester and ethics was waived because it was a service evaluation. Appropriate forms have been archived.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The data on costs was inaccurate because all specialist respiratory nurses and physiotherapists were band 7, not a mix of band 6/7. The difference made is small, but for the sake of accuracy, it was important to correct. This increased the cost per patient from 124 UK Pounds to 131 UK pounds. This had some downstream effects on some of the threshold values, which have also been altered correspondingly.
Data Availability
Participants in this study agreed for their anonymised data to be used for research purposes.
