Objective Rapid implementation of home sleep studies during the first UK COVID-19 ‘lockdown’—completion rates, family feedback and factors that predict success.
Design We included all patients who had a sleep study conducted at home instead of as inpatient from 30 March 2020 to 30 June 2020. Studies with less than 4 hours of data for analysis were defined ‘unsuccessful’.
Results 137 patients were included. 96 underwent home respiratory polygraphy (HRP), median age 5.5 years. 41 had oxycapnography (O2/CO2), median age 5 years. 56% HRP and 83% O2/CO2 were successful. A diagnosis of autism predicted a lower success rate (29%) as did age under 5 years.
Conclusion Switching studies rapidly from an inpatient to a home environment is possible, but there are several challenges that include a higher failure rate in younger children and those with neurodevelopmental disorders.
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Data will be only made available on reasonable request.
This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
PG and FT are joint senior authors.
Twitter @DrMikeFarquhar, @sleepprof
Contributors SJ designed the audit, collected data and drafted the manuscript. RH collected data and drafted the manuscript. TC has collected the data. KvdE, JO, MF, DJ and PG critically reviewed the manuscript. FT drafted the manuscript, reviewed data accuracy and critically reviewed the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.