INTRODUCTION

The last two decades have seen the growth of telemedicine and remote monitoring to enable healthcare delivery to patients at home [1,2]. The threat to global health systems resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of new ways of working across the globe and an increased use of remote monitoring, including oxygen monitoring and use of home oxygen therapy.

The current review provides an update on learning from the development of remote oxygen monitoring and therapy programmes during the COVID-19 pandemic, covering the scope and purpose of programmes, type of monitoring and targeted populations. We also discuss the evidence-base for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of monitoring and therapy, and, finally, provide an overview of the evidence for potential inequalities that may arise from remote oxygen monitoring. 

Box 1:

no caption available

BACKGROUND

Remote oxygen monitoring technologies have been used for that long?, particularly for chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure, although evidence of benefits of these programmes is unclear [2,3]. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid establishment of remote oxygen saturation monitoring programmes around the world. Early in the pandemic, low oxygen saturations were identified as a key predictor of mortality and the need for hospital admission [4], but low oxygen saturations in the absence of symptoms (so-called silent hypoxaemia) was recognized as a feature of many COVID-19 infections [5]. Pulse oximetry was thus identified as a route to early detection of the need for further clinical assessment and escalation of care and has led to the widespread adoption of monitoring programmes [6].

Oxygen therapy at home has been used for decades in the management of patients with severe hypoxaemia in COPD following landmark trials in the 1980s with a strong evidence base for increased survival [7,8]. However, its use is not limited to COPD, with the British Thoracic Society guidelines on the use of home oxygen in adults, for example, recommending its use in a selection of other chronic respiratory or cardiac diseases and include its use in long-term, nocturnal, ambulatory, palliative and ‘short-burst’ contexts, with differing recommendations for the prescription and monitoring in each case [9]. However, there is little evidence prior to the pandemic for home oxygen therapy in the management of acute diseases. A recent meta-analysis examining the use of home oxygen for moderate hypoxaemia in COPD found little or no difference in 3-year mortality as a result of home oxygen therapy [10]. The recent review of the American Thoracic Society guidelines acknowledge that ‘available data on home oxygen therapy are limited and generally of low quality and most directly support the recommendations pertaining to patients with severe room air hypoxemia due to COPD.’ [11] Despite this, home oxygen therapy has been used in several settings as part of the treatment of acute COVID-19 disease.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF HOME OXYGEN MONITORING AND THERAPY PROGRAMMES

Since early 2020, many home monitoring programmes which include oxygen saturation monitoring have been described for patients with COVID-19, predominantly from high-income countries, including studies from Australia [12], Belgium [13], Canada [14], Germany [15], Japan [16], the Netherlands [17], South Africa [18], United Kingdom [19–23] and the USA [24–27]. The majority of models have served one or both of two main goals: first, early detection of hypoxaemia to escalate care for people in the community with COVID-19 [14–16] or second, to enable early discharge from hospital in patients with COVID-19 [13,19,24,25]. Oxygen monitoring programmes have also been used to support clinical assessment and triage, rather than ongoing monitoring, for example a UK programme delivering equipment to patients to record observations, including a pulse oximeter and digital stethoscope, to enable clinicians to assess the need for hospital assessment or admission remotely [28].

A systematic review of home oxygen monitoring programmes implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic found significant variation in the characteristics of programmes, with variation in the frequency of monitoring, mode of submitting oxygen saturation measurements and total follow-up time [29▪]. Many of the oxygen monitoring programmes also existed as part of a wider package of remote monitoring, for example, including thermometers and blood pressure devices or including additional symptom monitoring [29▪].

Supplemental oxygen therapy has been described as part of relatively few remote monitoring pathways, used either to prevent the need for admission to hospital or to facilitate early supported discharge from hospital [16,30–32]. Some pathways were designed solely for those requiring home oxygen therapy, whereas others offered home oxygen therapy as part of a wider oximetry monitoring programme. These findings highlight that there is no single model of monitoring and therapy delivery and that programmes should be tailored to the specific population and setting.

SELF-MONITORING OR CLINICIAN MONITORING?

Home oxygen monitoring programmes vary in the intensity of staff input, and in whether patients self-monitor and self-escalate, are prompted to record readings, or are contacted and assessed proactively by clinical staff. A programme in Scotland, for example, which provided pulse oximeters to patients with COVID-19 at home, took the form of self-monitoring, with patients reminded twice daily to record symptoms and oxygen saturation readings, via SMS, app or online, receiving advice on escalation depending on symptoms and oxygen saturations [23]. In contrast, a study reporting on programmes implemented across England highlighted the role of clinician discretion in the modality and frequency of monitoring calls from programme staff. In some sites, patients could input measurements onto an app, which was reviewed by clinicians, but also allowed for automated alerts to patients, such as prompting a call to emergency services [33▪]. A monitoring and therapy programme in Japan involved a much more intensive ‘hospital-at-home’ service, including daily nurse and physician visits for higher risk patients [16].

WHO SHOULD BE MONITORED?

In the context of COVID-19, while some monitoring programmes have invited all patients with COVID-19 [14,15], most programmes have catered for higher risk patients. A programme in Japan focussed on people aged 70 years or over, but also included people with specific higher risk criteria (e.g., mental illness or with limited proficiency in Japanese) [16]. A national monitoring programme in England was initially recommended for patients aged 65 years or over, or at high-risk from COVID-19, but criteria were later extended to those aged 50 years or over [34]. The high-risk criteria included particular comorbidities, but was also based on the QCovid risk calculator, which includes factors such as ethnicity and measures of socioeconomic deprivation [34,35]. The programme also allowed for clinical discretion in decisions to enrol patients, in keeping with a programme in the USA, which gave full discretion to clinicians enrol patients [24]. Other bespoke programmes have been reported for specific demographic groups, such as those for pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 in England, the Netherlands and the USA [17,36,37].

EVIDENCE FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REMOTE OXYGEN MONITORING

Prior to the pandemic, evidence for the effectiveness of remote oxygen monitoring in improving clinical outcomes and reducing healthcare use in chronic diseases was unclear. A recent systematic review of studies reporting on remote patient monitoring identified that it may reduce acute care use in people with cardiovascular disease and COPD, but identified significant heterogeneity between studies, which prevented meta-analysis [38].

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies have reported on safety, healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes in patients on monitoring programmes. A study of four monitoring sites in England early in the pandemic showed that of 291 patients who were at low risk (<65 years and with no comorbidities), there were no deaths, with the authors concluding that home oxygen monitoring was safe [39].

Several observational studies have reported associations with clinical outcomes for those enrolled onto monitoring programmes compared with control groups. A study in the USA found patients discharged with remote monitoring (provided with a pulse oximeter and thermometer) had 46% lower odds (P = 0.039) of emergency department (ED) or hospital readmission compared with those discharged without monitoring [40]. A single-site study in England found that admitted patients who had previously been enrolled on a monitoring programme had significantly lower 30-day mortality and hospital length of stay, but found no difference in intensive care admissions to patients admitted directly without having been enrolled on a monitoring programme, after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities [20]. However, in keeping with several other single-site observational studies, enrolment to these programmes was not randomized; selective enrolment of patients with less severe disease or at different stages of disease onset may introduce significant bias to estimates.

Other studies have attempted to mitigate the impact of confounding by patient selection using population-based or instrumental variable designs. Two separate evaluations of a national oxygen monitoring programme in England using these approaches found no impact of the programme on mortality and no clear association with subsequent healthcare attendances [34,41]. However, both studies acknowledged small numbers enrolled onto the programme, which may have underpowered the studies to detect any effect and with findings likely reflecting background trends in population risk rather than of home monitoring.

A randomized-controlled trial (RCT) published in 2022 randomized 1041 patients to standard home monitoring, involving twice daily messages asking about dyspnoea, versus 1056 to an intervention arm providing a pulse oximeter, and found no significant differences in the number of days alive and out of hospital between groups [42▪]. However, the control arm of this study involved a degree of clinician-initiated review, which is unlikely to be standard care in most healthcare settings and may lead to underestimation of any impact of pulse oximetry monitoring.

The evidence for the effectiveness of monitoring programmes on mortality and healthcare utilization remains unclear, with a need for further RCTs or observational studies applying causal inference methods. However, interpretation may be further impacted by the significant heterogeneity already highlighted between how programmes are implemented.

EVIDENCE FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OXYGEN THERAPY

In a cohort of 621 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in the USA discharged from hospital with home oxygen, rates of readmission (8.5%) and all-cause mortality (1.3%) at 28 days were low. No deaths occurred in the ambulatory setting, however, the absence of a control group in this study means findings should be interpreted with caution [31]. A similar study from the United Kingdom of patients with COVID-19 monitored at home with pulse oximetry found no significant difference in the odds of admission or mortality within 30 days of discharge from hospital between those receiving and those not receiving home oxygen [32]. A study from the Netherlands of 196 patients receiving early supported hospital discharge onto a home oxygen programme for the treatment of COVID-9 was associated with a reduction in length of hospital stay of 6.4 days [30].

Although evidence for the benefit of home oxygen therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 is scarce, its use in clinical pathways in several countries and clinical settings suggests it is both feasible and potentially clinically useful to incorporate the provision of home oxygen as a supplement to home monitoring pathways for those where it may be clinically indicated.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Some studies have demonstrated that remote monitoring programmes may be cost effective. A cost-effectiveness analysis of patients presenting to EDs with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 found that those discharged from ED on a remote oximetry pathway had lower rates of mortality, subsequent ED visits and intensive care admissions in the 3 weeks following presentation than those not on the pathway, amounting to an estimated saving of $11 472 per patient [43]. Importantly, this analysis was unable to account for the other clinical characteristics of those who did and did not receive the intervention. Beyond this study, formal estimation of the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring and remote therapy programmes in COVID-19 is limited by a lack of consistent findings of clinical effectiveness.

Aside from formal cost-effectiveness analyses, survey findings may also support the potential cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring programmes. In a remote monitoring pathway initiated following ED attendance, 33% of those enrolled stated they would have returned to the ED if they did not have reassurance provided by the pulse oximeter at home [44]. In a cohort of oncology patients with COVID-19, 59% agreed that participation in a remote monitoring programme helped prevent ED or urgent care centre visits [45]. Taken collectively, there is promise that such pathways may offer a cost-effective way to provide care, however most of the evidence for effectiveness is demonstrated in the preferences of patients and clinicians, rather than through consistently demonstrated differences in clinical outcomes and health services utilization.

FEASIBILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY

Despite variable and scarce evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of home oximetry programmes, a largely consistent finding across studies is the positive reception of such programmes by patients. In a study of 4400 patients enrolled in a COVID-19 home monitoring programme in the USA, around 78% of participants were satisfied with the programme and 97% of respondents felt safe monitoring their condition at home [46]. In a cohort of 257 oncology patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were enrolled onto a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme, 91% felt participation in the programme was helpful, 87% felt that participation was an important part of their care and 76% felt participation helped manage their symptoms at home [45]. In a Dutch study combining remote monitoring and home oxygen administration, 98% of patients would recommend the service while 93% rated it as ‘user friendly’ [30].

In a multisite survey of COVID-19 remote home monitoring models in England, patient experience was described by staff as generally positive, with reassurance being a major advantage of the programmes [33▪]. They did, however, also report some patients becoming more anxious as a result of monitoring and a reduction in patient engagement with monitoring was observed in the latter stages of the pandemic.

DISPARITIES IN HOME MONITORING AND THERAPY

As with any innovation in healthcare, the benefits of home oximetry monitoring and oxygen therapy may be experienced differently across patient groups [47▪]. Although several studies show patients found remote monitoring services easy to use, concerns remain for those with lower digital literacy or with cognitive or physical conditions that would make recording and responding to information difficult [48]. Similarly, remote monitoring pathways often rely upon an established clinical information sharing infrastructure, usually in the form of electronic health records, supplemented by app-based interfaces [49,50]. Such infrastructure may not exist, or only be available to a small proportion of the population, particularly in lower income countries [49,50]. As such, there is a risk that such pathways may widen rather than narrow inequities in access to clinical services. Designing and funding services with these considerations in mind is crucial to their fair and successful implementation.

A separate concern, first identified over 20 years ago, which came to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic relates to the effectiveness of pulse oximeters in identifying hypoxaemia in those with darker skin [51]. Two recent studies find pulse oximeters fail to identify hypoxaemia more frequently in patients with darker skin, who as a result may be assessed as having less severe disease than White patients with identical arterial oxygen saturations and may thus be less likely to receive treatment [52,53▪▪]. Both studies also demonstrate extensive disagreement between oxygen saturation levels estimated by pulse oximetry and arterial blood gas analysis. Collectively, this indicates a need to both improve the precision of pulse oximeters overall, and specifically for patients with darker skin, and highlights the need for measurements to be interpreted in their clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Remote oxygen monitoring has been used for many years for a range of mostly chronic conditions, however pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic have seen a dramatic expansion in the scale of such models of care. A wide range of programmes have been established, some focussed on early detection of hypoxaemia and others to enable early discharge, and with heterogeneity in the mode and intensity of monitoring and targeted population. Evidence for the effectiveness of home oxygen monitoring and oxygen therapy on patient outcomes in the context of COVID-19 is unclear, but programmes appear to be well received by patients and clinicians alike. However, there remain significant concerns about the equity impact of pulse oximeters, particularly in people with darker skin. Rapid increases in the maturity and sophistication of digital clinical devices have made remote care a feasible alternative to face-to-face care. Such pathways are likely to persist and expand in the coming years to eventually become the norm for those whose clinical needs can be met without the need to attend a hospital or clinic.

Acknowledgements

None.

Financial support and sponsorship

T.B. and J.C. are supported by fellowships from the Wellcome Trust. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of their institutions or the Wellcome Trust.

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicting interests.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

▪ of special interest

▪▪ of outstanding interest

REFERENCES 1. Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of telehealth. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:154–161. 2. Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management – an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18:211–220. 3. Buekers J, De Boever P, Vaes AW, et al. Oxygen saturation measurements in telemonitoring of patients with COPD: a systematic review. Expert Rev Respir Med 2018; 12:113–123. 4. Yadaw AS, Li YC, Bose S, et al. Clinical features of COVID-19 mortality: development and validation of a clinical prediction model. Lancet Digit Health 2020; 2:e516–e525. 5. Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202:356–360. 6. Jouffroy R, Jost D, Prunet B. Prehospital pulse oximetry: a red flag for early detection of silent hypoxemia in COVID-19 patients. Crit Care 2020; 24:313. 7. [No authors listed]. Long term domiciliary oxygen therapy in chronic hypoxic cor pulmonale complicating chronic bronchitis and emphysema: report of the Medical Research Council Working Party. Lancet 1981; 317:681–686. 8. Continuous or nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive lung disease: a clinical trial. Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial Group. Ann Intern Med. 1980;93:391-8. 9. Hardinge M, Annandale J, Bourne S, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for home oxygen use in adults: accredited by NICE Thorax 2015;70:i1-i43 10. Lacasse Y, Casaburi R, Sliwinski P, et al. Home oxygen for moderate hypoxaemia in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10:1029–1037. 11. Wenger HC, Cifu AS, Lee CT. Home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease. JAMA 2021; 326:1738. 12. Hutchings OR, Dearing C, Jagers D, et al. Virtual healthcare for community management of patients with COVID-19 in Australia: observational cohort study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23:e21064. 13. Gruwez H, Bakelants E, Dreesen P, et al. Remote patient monitoring in COVID-19: a critical appraisal. Eur Respir J 2022; 59:2102697. 14. Agarwal P, Mukerji G, Laur C, et al. Adoption, feasibility and safety of a family medicine-led remote monitoring program for patients with COVID-19: a descriptive study. CMAJ Open 2021; 9:E324–E330. 15. Lim A, Hippchen T, Unger I, et al. An outpatient management strategy using a coronataxi digital early warning system reduces coronavirus disease 2019 mortality. Open Forum Infect Dis 2022; 9:ofac063. 16. Miyamoto Y, Matsuyama T, Kunimitsu K, et al. Hospital at home for elderly COVID-19 patients: a preliminary report with 100 patients. J Clin Med 2022; 11:1850. 17. Moes SL, Depmann M, Lely TA, Bekker MN. Telemonitoring for COVID-19 positive pregnant women; feasibility and user experience of [email protected] Corona: prospective pilot study. Pregnancy Childbirth 2022; 22:556. 18. Nematswerani N, Collie S, Chen T, et al. The impact of routine pulse oximetry use on outcomes in COVID-19-infected patients at increased risk of severe disease: a retrospective cohort analysis. S Afr Med J 2021; 111:950–956. 19. Kyriakides J, Khani A, Coleman R, Kelly C. Analysis of an ambulatory care pathway for patients with COVID-19 utilising remote pulse oximetry at a London district general hospital. Cureus 2021; 13:e12979. 20. Boniface M, Burns D, Duckworth C, et al. COVID-19 Oximetry @home: evaluation of patient outcomes. BMJ Open Qual 2022; 11:e001584. 21. Hibberd J, Carter J, McCoy M, et al. General practice in the time of COVID-19: a mixed-methods service evaluation of a primary care COVID-19 service. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18:2895. 22. Bell LC, Norris-Grey C, Luintel A, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a COVID-19 rapid follow-up service for patients discharged from the emergency department. Clin Med 2021; 21:e57–e62. 23. McKinstry B, Alexander H, Maxwell G, et al. The use of telemonitoring in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: pilot implementation study. JMIR Form Res 2021; 5:e20131. 24. Gootenberg DB, Kurtzman N, O’Mara T, et al. Developing a pulse oximetry home monitoring protocol for patients suspected with COVID-19 after emergency department discharge. BMJ Health Care Inform 2021; 28:e100330. 25. Patel H, Hassell A, Cyriacks B, et al. Building a real-time remote patient monitoring patient safety program for COVID-19 patients. Am J Med Qual 2022; 37:342–347. 26. Ye S, Hiura G, Fleck E, et al. Hospital readmissions after implementation of a discharge care program for patients with COVID-19 illness. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36:722–729. 27. Shaw JG, Sankineni S, Olaleye CA, et al. A novel large scale integrated telemonitoring program for COVID-19. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27:1317–1321. 28. Irving G, Lawson D, Tinsley A, et al. Evaluation of a ‘drop box’ doorstep assessment service to aid remote assessments for COVID-19 in general practice. BMJ Open Qual 2021; 10:e001081. 29▪. Alboksmaty A, Beaney T, Elkin S, et al. Effectiveness and safety of pulse oximetry in remote patient monitoring of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review. Lancet Digital Health 2022; 4:e279–e289. 30. Grutters LA, Majoor KI, Pol-Mattern ESK, et al. Home-monitoring reduces hospital stay of COVID-19 patients. Eur Respir J 2021; 58:2101871. 31. Banerjee J, Canamar CP, Voyageur C, et al. Mortality and readmission rates among patients with COVID-19 after discharge from acute care setting with supplemental oxygen. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e213990. 32. Ward TJ, Mavilakandy A, Danns J, et al. Outcomes from a virtual ward delivering oxygen at home for patients recovering from COVID-19: a real world observational study. Clin Med 2022; 22:197–202. 33▪. Vindrola-Padros C, Sidhu MS, Georghiou T, et al. The implementation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 34:100799. 34. Beaney T, Clarke J, Alboksmaty A, et al. 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. Emerg Med J 2022; 39:575–582. 35. Clift AK, Coupland CAC, Keogh RH, et al. Living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID) for risk of hospital admission and mortality from coronavirus 19 in adults: national derivation and validation cohort study. BMJ 2020; 371:m3731. 36. Bircher C, Wilkes M, Zahradka N, et al. Remote care and triage of obstetric patients with COVID-19 in the community: operational considerations. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022; 22:550. 37. Krenitsky NM, Spiegelman J, Sutton D, et al. Primed for a pandemic: Implementation of telehealth outpatient monitoring for women with mild COVID-19. Semin Perinatol 2020; 44:151285. 38. Taylor ML, Thomas EE, Snoswell CL, et al. Does remote patient monitoring reduce acute care use? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e040232. 39. Clarke J, Flott K, Fernandez Crespo R, et al. Assessing the safety of home oximetry for COVID-19: a multisite retrospective observational study. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e049235. 40. Gordon WJ, Henderson D, DeSharone A, et al. Remote patient monitoring program for hospital discharged COVID-19 patients. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11:792–801. 41. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Georghiou T, Morris S, et al. The impact of remote home monitoring of people with COVID-19 using pulse oximetry: a national population and observational study. EClinicalMedicine 2022; 45:101318. 42▪. Lee KC, Morgan AU, Chaiyachati KH, et al. Pulse oximetry for monitoring patients with Covid-19 at home – a pragmatic, randomized trial. N Engl J Med 2022; 386:1857–1859. 43. Padula WV, Miano MA, Kelley MA, et al. A cost-utility analysis of remote pulse-oximetry monitoring of patients with COVID-19. Value Health 2022; 25:890–896. 44. Shah S, Majmudar K, Stein A, et al. Novel use of home pulse oximetry monitoring in COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department identifies need for hospitalization. Acad Emerg Med 2020; 27:681–692. 45. Daly B, Lauria TS, Holland JC, et al. Oncology patients’ perspectives on remote patient monitoring for COVID-19. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 17:e1278–e1285. 46. Vartanian KB, Holtorf M, Cox EJ, et al. Patient experience and healthcare utilization for a COVID-19 telemedicine home monitoring program offered in English and Spanish. PloS One 2022; 17:e0270754. 47▪. Lyles CR, Wachter RM, Sarkar U. Focusing on digital health equity. JAMA 2021; 326:1795. 48. Richardson S, Lawrence K, Schoenthaler AM, Mann D. A framework for digital health equity. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5:119. 49. Chitungo I, Mhango M, Mbunge E, et al. Utility of telemedicine in SUB-SAHARAN Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. A rapid review. Hum Behav Emerg Technol 2021; 3:843–853. 50. Blandford A, Wesson J, Amalberti R, et al. Opportunities and challenges for telehealth within, and beyond, a pandemic. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8:e1364–e1365. 51. Jubran A, Tobin MJ. Reliability of pulse oximetry in titrating supplemental oxygen therapy in ventilator-dependent patients. Chest 1990; 97:1420–1425. 52. Sjoding MW, Dickson RP, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Racial bias in pulse oximetry measurement. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:2477–2478. 53▪▪. Fawzy A, Wu TD, Wang K, et al. Racial and ethnic discrepancy in pulse oximetry and delayed identification of treatment eligibility among patients with COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med 2022; 182:730–738.