BackgroundThere is a lack of data on the safety of providing oxygen at home to stable patients recovering from COVID-19. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients discharged to a COVID-19 virtual ward (CVW) between January 2021 and March 2021 at a UK district general hospital was performed. Patients with improving clinical trajectories and oxygen requirements up to 4 L/minute were eligible. Outcomes measured were 30-day mortality and readmission rate. ResultsFrom 02 January 2021 to 16 March 2021 (74 days), 147 patients discharged to the CVW were included: 71 received continuous or ambulatory oxygen, and 76 received pulse oximetry monitoring only. Five patients were readmitted within 30 days and two patients died. There were no significant differences between readmission and mortality rates between those discharged with or without oxygen. ConclusionProvision of oxygen at home for selected patients recovering from COVID-19 is safe with low risk of readmission and death.

Stage shift' has been proposed as a marker of impact of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) in lung cancer services; however, there are no data available specifically from income-deprived areas. Thus, this study evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care in our area (Corby; among the most income deprived in England) and identified focus recovery areas. The study was a retrospective observational study of 668 consecutive patients with lung cancer at a district general hospital, pre-, during and after the COVID peak. Outcomes were the overall number of cases, presenting staging and treatment pathway. Overall, 32 fewer patients were diagnosed during the pandemic, with more inpatient diagnoses (p=0.01) and fewer primary care referrals (p<0.0001). There were no differences observed in treatment intent or 'stage shift'. Our results suggest that COVID-19 negatively affected the whole lung cancer pathway in our area. However, 'stage shift' might not be ideal to assess the impact of COVID-19 in income-deprived areas. Further studies will help the strategic rollout of a screening programme to identify patients with lung cancer earlier on in such areas.

Background: Severe COVID-19 pneumonitis in elderly frail patients is associated with poor outcomes, and therefore invasive mechanical ventilation is often deemed an inappropriate course of action. Some evidence suggests high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may prevent the need for invasive ventilation in other groups of patients, but whether it is an appropriate ceiling of care for older frail patients is unknown. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis requiring FiO2>60% who were deemed inappropriate for invasive ventilation or non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP). Our local protocol based on national guidance suggested these patients should be considered for HFNO. We observed whether the patients received HFNO or standard oxygen therapy (SOT) and compared mortality and survival time in these groups. Results: We identified 81 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. From this group, 24 received HFNO and 57 received SOT. The HFNO group was similar in age, BMI and co-morbidities to the SOT group but less frail, as determined by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). All 24 patients that received HFNO died in comparison to 46 patients (80.7%) in the SOT group. Mortality in the HFNO group was significantly higher than in the SOT group. Conclusion: Elderly frail patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis deemed inappropriate for invasive ventilation and did not benefit from HFNO. Further, HFNO may have been associated with harm in this group.