Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital.

Oxygen is a low-cost and life-saving therapy for patients with COVID-19. Yet, it is a limited resource in many hospitals in low income countries and in the 2020 pandemic even hospitals in richer countries reported oxygen shortages. An accurate understanding of oxygen requirements is needed for capacity planning. The World Health Organization estimates the average flow-rate of oxygen to severe COVID-19-patients to be 10 l/min. However, there is a lack of empirical data about the oxygen provision to patients. This study aimed to estimate the oxygen provision to COVID-19 patients with severe disease in a Swedish district hospital. A retrospective, medical records-based cohort study was conducted in March to May 2020 in a Swedish district hospital. All adult patients with severe COVID-19 -those who received oxygen in the ward and had no ICU-admission during their hospital stay-were included. Data were collected on the oxygen flow-rates provided to the patients throughout their hospital stay, and summary measures of oxygen provision calculated. One-hundred and twenty-six patients were included, median age was 70 years and 43% were female. On admission, 27% had a peripheral oxygen saturation of ≤91% and 54% had a respiratory rate of ≥25/min. The mean oxygen flow-rate to patients while receiving oxygen therapy was 3.0 l/min (SD 2.9) and the mean total volume of oxygen provided per patient admission was 16,000 l (SD 23,000). In conclusion, the provision of oxygen to severely ill COVID-19-patients was lower than previously estimated. Further research is required before global estimates are adjusted.

Introduction

The world has been tackling the COVID-19 pandemic since early 2020 [1]. The pandemic has led to high demands on health systems and many lives have been lost because of the disease [2]. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronvarius-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19 can affect most organs but is primarily a respiratory virus [3]. Viral pneumonia is the most common serious manifestation and can result in hypoxemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [3,4].

To treat severe and critical COVID-19, much global focus has been on expanding intensive care capacity including the use of mechanical ventilation [5]. Whilst many critically ill patients can benefit from mechanical ventilation if it is administrated by experienced personnel, it is a staff intensive measure and requires training to be effective and avoid harm [6].

Oxygen therapy is a low cost treatment, less complex than mechanical ventilation and saves lives in COVID-19 [4,7-9]. It is the first-line treatment of hypoxemia and has been listed as a World Health Organization (WHO) essential medicine [10]. Oxygen is a limited resource in many hospitals in low income countries [11-15], and during the peaks of the pandemic waves there have been reports of hospitals running out of oxygen in high and middle income countries such as the UK, USA, South Africa, Portugal, Egypt and Brazil [16-22]. In addition, sudden failures of the oxygen systems requiring emergency transport from other sites may happen to hospitals anywhere in the world.

Capacity planning is needed to optimise the distribution of oxygen and reach highest positive impact on patient outcomes. This requires an accurate understanding of oxygen requirements for patients with COVID-19. The WHO estimates the average flow-rate of oxygen to severely ill COVID-19-patients (referring to those requiring oxygen but not intensive care unit treatment) to be 10 l/min [23]. This estimate is not based on empirical findings and there is a lack of quantitative data on oxygen provision to patients. This study aims to estimate oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients in a Swedish district hospital.

Method

A retrospective, electronic medical records-based cohort study in the medical department in Nyköping Hospital, Sweden.

Setting

Nyköping Hospital is a first-line district hospital in Sörmland Region in Sweden with a catchment area of 90,000 people. The medical department in the hospital has a usual capacity for managing 35 inpatients at a time. Sörmland was one of the first Swedish regions to be significantly affected by COVID-19 in 2020 [24]–the first COVID-19 patient was admitted to the department in early March. Less than a month later, the number of in-patients with COVID-19 was 43, with an average of seven new COVID-19 admissions per day.

In the medical department, 40 beds on two new wards were opened within two weeks of the first COVID-19-admission and extra staff were drawn from other areas of the hospital. Piped oxygen was provided from a central supply source to the wards. The patients’ respiratory rate and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) were assessed at least every two hours and any oxygen therapy through nasal prongs (<5l/min) or face masks (≥5l/min) (or, when indicated, with reservoir bags) was adjusted to maintain SpO2 within an individualized target range. The standard target range was 92–96%, but individualized lower targets ranges were used for patients with assumed hypercapnic respiratory failure. The hospital has an intensive care unit (ICU), which was expanded from the usual 5-beds to 14-beds during the pandemic. There was no shortage of oxygen during the study period.

Before rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing capacity was widely available, an initial diagnosis of COVID-19 was based on the clinical picture together with typical findings on a thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan [25]. Often the initial diagnosis was confirmed by later PCR-testing. This early diagnostic reliance on CT scans shifted towards PCR-testing during the time of the study.

Standard treatments protocols evolved during the study period and included at different times chloroquine, antibiotics and anticoagulation prophylaxis. Corticosteroids, Remdesivir and other COVID-therapeutics were not included as standard treatment during the time of the study. High-flow nasal oxygen and non-invasive ventilation were neither recommended for ARDS in COVID-19, nor available in the medical wards at this time. Patients that needed more respiratory support than low-flow oxygen were transferred to the ICU where most received invasive mechanical ventilation.

Charlson´s age adjusted comorbidity score (CACI) was calculated for all patients and noted in the chart for each patient. The CACI score (from 0 to 37) predicts 10-year-survival in patients, accounting for age and multiple comorbidities. For example a CACI-score of 4 points estimates 53% 10-year-survival; 0 points 98% and ≥7 points 0% 10-year-survival [26,27]. As many of the admitted patients were elderly and frail, in which ICU care may cause harm or would not be in the patient´s best interest, a policy was introduced to make patient-centred decisions for every admitted patient about the appropriateness of care-escalation to ICU in the event of clinical deterioration. The decision of no escalation of care to ICU (no-ICU) was documented in the patient´s notes and, importantly, was not regarded as synonymous with end-of-life or palliative care. Patients for whom a no-ICU decision had been made received all other therapies, including oxygen therapy when indicated, unless an additional clinical decision was made to provide end-of-life palliative care.

Study cohort

The Sörmland Region database of COVID-19 patients was used to identify participants. All adult patients (age ≥18) admitted to the department of medicine in Nyköping Hospital from March 13 to May 10 who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 during their admission and who fulfilled the criteria for “severe” disease were included. Severe patients were those who received oxygen at some point during their care in the ward and had no ICU-admission during their hospital-stay, in-line with the WHO’s classification [23]. Non-severe COVID-19 patients–patients with either moderate disease (never received oxygen) or critical disease (admitted to the ICU, either from the wards or directly from the emergency department) [23]–were not included in the study cohort. However, to describe the study cohort in context, data about admission findings, the most advanced mode of respiratory support and outcomes were collected for all COVID-19 patients admitted to the department during the study period. For patients with more than one admission, only data from the first admission were included.

Sub-groups

Two a-priori defined sub-groups were analysed, as it was hypothesised that their oxygen provision may differ substantially from other patients. The first group were those patients for whom a no-ICU-decision had been made. The second group consisted of patients younger than 70 years old.

Data extraction

Data were extracted in two ways. Data on vital signs and oxygen treatment on admission, patient characteristics including Charlson´s Age Adjusted Comorbidity score (CACI) [26,27], clinical and laboratory findings, pharmaceutical treatments and the presence of a no-ICU decision were extracted manually from the patients’ electronic medical records. Other data were collected through a computerised search in the electronic medical records system, including for dates of admission, discharge, outcomes, and all registered SpO2 values and oxygen flow-rates throughout the patients’ care. The data extracted with a computerised search were validated by manual cross-checking a 10% sample of the data with the medical records. Data were used from the patients’ entire stay in the medical department. The patients’ outcome in the medical department were noted as either transfer to another department, discharge home or died, with an additional outcome of died within 60 days.

Analysis

All data were anonymised before analysis. Oxygen provision to each patient was estimated by multiplying the oxygen flow-rate during each assessment of the patient (l/min) and the time since the previous assessment (minutes). Thereby, the volumes of oxygen provided to the patient over time were generated, and the sum of these made up the total volume of oxygen provided to the patient (formula 1).

n: one time point in a series of consecutive time points, T: time at the time point n, X: oxygen flow (l/min) at the time point n

The mean oxygen flow-rate for each patient while receiving oxygen was calculated as the total volume of oxygen provided divided by time spent receiving oxygen treatment. An additional analysis of the mean oxygen flow-rate for each patient during their care in the ward used the total oxygen volume provided divided by total time in the ward. Means were used to provide an estimate of the total amount of oxygen that needs to be supplied to such a patient cohort. Medians were also calculated for both analyses to provide an estimate of a “typical” patient, given the non-normally distributed data. For other variables, median and interquartile range (IQR) were used for non-normally distributed values and mean and standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed values. For all admitted patients, the clinical progression score was determined as has been recently defined [28]. Admission vital signs were analysed as the proportion of vital signs corresponding to a red NEWS-2 parameter [29]. Missing descriptive data were delt with by pairwise deletion, i.e. all available data per variable was included in analysis. STATA IC/15.1(StataCorpLLC) was used for the analysis.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board in Lund, reference number 2020–04012. As the study did not alter patient care and data were anonymised before analysis, individual patient consent was waived.

Results

Patient characteristics

In total, 206 COVID-19 patients were admitted to the department during the study period (Tables 1 and S1). Of these, 126 had severe disease and were included as the study cohort. The median age was 70 years (IQR 57–82), 54 (43%) were female and 42% had a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above. CACI scores were 4 or above (indicating <50% estimated 10-years survival) in 50% of the patients [26,27]. A no-ICU decision was documented for 48% of the patients. On admission, 34 (27%) had an SpO2 of 91% or below and 68 (54%) had a respiratory rate of 25 or above. The length of stay was a median of 4.9 days (IQR 2.8–7.8). Eight (6.4%) patients were transferred to another department. The in-hospital mortality was 26% and the 60-day mortality was 32%. For the subset of patients aged <70, in-hospital and 60-day mortalities were 6.5% and 8.1% respectively and for patients with a documented no-ICU-decision 55% and 65% respectively. The clinical progression scores for all admitted patients are presented in S2 Table.

Table 1

Patient characteristics and outcomes.

	Study cohort % (n/N), unless otherwise stated	All patients admitted to the department % (n/N), unless otherwise stated
Age (years), median (IQR)	70 (57–82)	65 (54–78)
Female	43% (54/126)	42% (87/206)
Diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by PCR	90% (114/126)	89% (184/206)
BMI ≥30	42% (38/91)	40% (56/141)
CACI ≥4	50% (63/126)	43% (88/206)
No-ICU-decision documented	48% (60/126)	37% (77/206)
Red NEWS-2 [29] parameter on first measurements of vital signs
SpO2 (≤91%)	27% (34/126)	28% (57/206)
Respiratory rate (≤8 or ≥25 breaths/min)	54% (68/126)	49% (100/203)
Heart rate (≤40 or ≥131 beats/min)	3.2% (4/125)	2.4% (5/205)
Systolic blood pressure (≤90 or ≥220 mmHg)	2.4% (3/125)	2.0% (4/205)
Consciousness (Non-alert)	13% (17/126)	10% (20/204)
Temperature (≤35.0 or ≥39.1°C)	14% (18/125)	16% (32/205)
Treatments during hospital-stay
Antibiotics	79% (99/126)	77% (158/206)
Chloroquine	12% (15/126)	14% (28/206)
Anticoagulants	52% (65/126)	55% (114/206)
Patient outcomes
Length of stay (days), median (IQR)	4.9 (2.8–7.8)	4.3 (2.2–9.0)
Transfer to another department	6.4% (8/126)	13% (27/206)
Dead in-hospital	26% (33/126)	19% (40/206)
Dead at 60 days	32% (40/126)	23% (48/206)

*Abbreviations: PCR: Polymerase chain reaction, BMI: Body mass index, CACI: Charlson´s age adjusted comorbidity score, ICU: Intensive care unit, SpO2: Peripheral oxygen saturation.

Oxygen provision

The mean oxygen flow-rate to the patients while receiving oxygen therapy was 3.0 l/min (SD 2.9) and the median was 2.0 l/min (IQR 1.3–3.5). Results for oxygen provision to the study cohort are shown in Table 2 and for patients that were initially cared for in the wards but later transferred to ICU (therefore not part of the study cohort) in S3 Table. The highest oxygen flow-rate provided to the patients was median 4.0 l/min (IQR 2.0–8.0) and mean 5.4 l/min (SD 4.1) (Fig 1).

Table 2

Oxygen provision.

	Study cohort (n = 126)	Subgroups
		Patients aged <70 (n = 62)	Patients with a no-ICU-decision (n = 60)
Age, median (IQR)	70 (57–82)	57 (48–61)	83 (75–88)
Days on oxygen treatment, median (IQR)	2.3 (0.68–4.2)	1.8 (0.68–3.9)	2.5 (0.77–4.8)
Oxygen flow to patients during oxygen therapy (l/min)
•Mean (SD)	3.0 (2.9)	2.6 (2.3)	4.0 (3.7)
•Median (IQR)	2.0 (1.3–3.5)	1.9 (1.3–2.9)	2.9 (1.6–5.6)
Oxygen flow to patients during time in the ward (l/min)
•Mean (SD)	2.2 (2.9)	1.8 (2.3)	3.1 (3.7)
•Median (IQR)	1.2 (0.32–2.6)	1.1 (0.43–2.0)	1.6 (0.28–4.6)
Total volume of oxygen provided per patient admission (l)
•Mean (SD)	16,000 (23,000)	12,000 (16,000)	22,000 (26,000)
•Median (IQR)	7,400 (1,200–21,000)	4,8000 (1,800–17,000)	12,000 (2,000–32,000)

Fig 1

Highest oxygen flow-rate.

The figure shows the highest oxygen flow-rate provided to patients with severe COVID-19 during their care in the medical wards.

Discussion

We have found that a mean of 3.0 l/min (median 2.0 l/min) oxygen were provided to severely ill COVID-19 patients while receiving oxygen in a Swedish district hospital during the first peak of the pandemic in 2020. This calculated oxygen flow-rate is lower than the 10 l/min estimated by the WHO for COVID-19 patients with severe disease [23].

A strength of this study is the use of a method for calculating oxygen provision to hospitalized patients by summing up documented flow-rates in the medical records. Previously, findings of the proportions of patients receiving oxygen [8,30-33] and assumptions on required oxygen flow [23] have been presented. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use all the necessary data to be able to calculate total oxygen provision to patients.

The 206 patients admitted to the medical department in Nyköping with COVID-19 during this study period had similar age, gender proportions and in-hospital mortality as other described cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients [8,30,32,34]. The median length of stay of 4.3 days was shorter in the Nyköping patient group than in two cohorts from New York and Madrid described during the early pandemic, as well as in the multinational ISARIC survey, with stays of seven to nine days [32,34,35]. This could be explained by Sweden´s early discharge policies [36,37] and a considerable amount of patient transfers in this study (13% of all admitted patients and 6.4% of the study cohort) due to overcrowding.

The lower flow-rates of oxygen to patients with severe COVID-19 in this study compared to previous estimates are interesting but, for several reasons, should be interpreted with caution when planning health care services. Firstly, it is treacherous for health care systems to make plans based on the COVID-19 patient categories “severe” and “critical” as there are currently several definitions in use and many of them categorise patients based on the care they receive rather than the care they require [23,28,38]. Since resources and practices for ICU-admission vary greatly around the world, for example ICU beds per 100,000 population vary from 29 in Germany to 6 in Sweden and <1 in Uganda [39], very few COVID-19 patients would be classified as critical in Uganda according to the definition used by WHO and in this study. Indeed, in settings with less availability of ICU beds, sicker patients will be classified as “severe” and require higher flows of oxygen than the cohort in this study. In addition, suboptimal respiratory support might cause shorter survival or survival with prolonged time to recovery–hence it is difficult to make assumptions on the quantity of oxygen they need without available data. This study aimed to study a patient group that was truly severe according to the WHO classification, and due to the well-resourced hospital system in Sweden succeeded with this aim, but a similar group may not be easy to delineate in other settings.

Secondly, decisions on treatment limitations were important to the assignment of patients to the severe group in this study and such practices vary largely across countries. Of the study patients, 48% had a no-ICU-decision meaning that even if they deteriorated, they were kept in the general wards and received targeted oxygen treatment. Although oxygen needs for this subgroup was also considerably lower than the WHO estimate (4.0 l/min), it is possible that in settings with other norms around treatment limitations, these patients may, at some point, have received ICU-treatments such as mechanical ventilation with substantially higher oxygen flow-rates.

Thirdly, the flow-rates of oxygen provided to patients depend on target saturation and duration between treatment modifications. The patients in this study were cared for with defined targets and frequent saturation controls. In wards where oxygen flow is not–or cannot be–adjusted as frequently, oxygen flow-rates and target saturations may be higher to provide patients with a safe margin for avoiding hypoxia [40]. While the optimal target saturation for hospitalised patients receiving oxygen is debated [41,42], the target range in Nyköping was set following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines [43].

Our findings suggest that the oxygen need for severely ill COVID-19 patients may be lower than previously estimated. Future research using the methods described in this study in larger cohorts and from other settings would be useful to inform capacity planning with updated estimates of oxygen need. Additionally, as oxygen is essential in many other conditions such as sepsis, trauma [15,22,44-46] and notably child pneumonia, a disease killing 800,000 children under 5 each year [14,47], estimates for the oxygen needs for treating these conditions would be beneficial.

Conclusion

The provision of oxygen to severely ill COVID-19-patients was lower than previously estimated. Further research is required before global estimates are adjusted.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Clinical progression score for all admitted patients.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Oxygen provision in the wards to patients that were later transferred to ICU.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-10716

Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hvarfner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please revise accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have following competing interests: Dr. Baker reports a grant and personal fees from Wellcome Trust, and personal fees from UNICEF and the World Bank, all outside the submitted work.].

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study does seem to be interesting especially in this pandemic where a lot of countries are facing paucity of oxygen.

Few comments though.

1)Could the authors please elaborate on the CACI scoring system for the benefit of the readers?

2)Did any of the patients have any underlying pulmonary disease like Bronchial asthma,COPD, structural lung disease like bronchiectasis?

3)Did any of them have underlying cardiac issues which could have aggravated the hypoxemia?

4)How was 02 administered ,nasal prongs,face masks,Venturi masks etc?

5)What was the source of 02 supply-concentrators, cylinders,central supply source?

Would be great to hear from you.

Regards,

Dr Supriya.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review " Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital" by Anna Hvarfner et al.

The authors retrospectively surveyed oxygen flow-rate and total volume of oxygen in severely ill COVID-19-patients. The mean oxygen flow-rate was 3.0 l/min, and lower than previously estimated. This is an interesting study. Although oxygen flow-rate might vary according to targeted SpO2, the authors stated about it.

My comments are as follows.

“The WHO estimates the average flow-rate of oxygen to severely ill COVID 19-patients (referring to those requiring oxygen but not intensive care unit treatment) to be 10 l/min.”

I couldn't find this description in reference 22. Where is it listed?

There seems to some missing data in table 1. How do you handle missing values?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Dec 2021

REVIEWER #1

The study does seem to be interesting especially in this pandemic where a lot of countries are facing paucity of oxygen. Few comments though.

- Thank you!

1)Could the authors please elaborate on the CACI scoring system for the benefit of the readers?

- The following is added in rows 108-119:

Charlson´s age adjusted comorbidity score (CACI) was calculated for all patients and noted in the chart for each patient. The CACI score (from 0 to 37) predicts 10-year-survival in patients, accounting for age and multiple comorbidities For example a CACI-score of 4 points estimates 53% 10-year-survival; 0 points 98% and �7 points 0% 10-year-survival(26,27).

2)Did any of the patients have any underlying pulmonary disease like Bronchial asthma,COPD, structural lung disease like bronchiectasis?

- We did not collect data on pre-existing diagnoses in detail but chose to use the CACI score as an indicator of the total burden of underlying illness for each patient.

3)Did any of them have underlying cardiac issues which could have aggravated the hypoxemia?

- Please, see above.

4)How was 02 administered ,nasal prongs,face masks,Venturi masks etc?

- We have added this description on O2-administration in rows 92-94:

“(…)oxygen therapy through nasal prongs (<5l/min) or face masks (≥5l/min) (or, when indicated, with reservoir bags) was adjusted to maintain SpO2 within an individualized target range.”

5)What was the source of 02 supply-concentrators, cylinders,central supply source?

- All oxygen came from a central supply source. We have added this in rows 90-91:

”Piped oxygen was provided from a central supply source to the wards.”

REVIEWER#2: Thank you for allowing me to review " Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital" by Anna Hvarfner et al.

The authors retrospectively surveyed oxygen flow-rate and total volume of oxygen in severely ill COVID-19-patients. The mean oxygen flow-rate was 3.0 l/min, and lower than previously estimated. This is an interesting study. Although oxygen flow-rate might vary according to targeted SpO2, the authors stated about it.

My comments are as follows.

- Thank you!

“The WHO estimates the average flow-rate of oxygen to severely ill COVID 19-patients (referring to those requiring oxygen but not intensive care unit treatment) to be 10 l/min.”

I couldn't find this description in reference 22. Where is it listed?

- We agree that this is not very clearly stated in the reference. However in the first paragraph of the “COVID-19 and oxygen” section there is a description of different severity stages of COVID-19 stating that “…about 15 % of them have severe illness requiring oxygen therapy, and 5% will be critically ill requiring intensive care unit treatment.” Further down in table 1 there is a presentation of the oxygen needs for these two groups (for severe patients 10 L/min).

There seems to some missing data in table 1. How do you handle missing values?

- We used pairwise deletion, i.e.. including all available cases per variable in the descriptive data in Table 1. We have added a sentence clarifying this in rows 181-182.

“Missing descriptive data were delt with by pairwise deletion, i.e. all available data per variable was included in analysis.”

Journal Requirements and our actions

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

- To the best of our ability the title page, the main body, and the supporting information have been adjusted. The figure file is relabeled.

2.Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

- The reference list is reviewed. We have added one reference to a recently published study of the unmet need of oxygen treatment in critical illness (15).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have following competing interests: Dr. Baker reports a grant and personal fees from Wellcome Trust, and personal fees from UNICEF and the World Bank, all outside the submitted work.].

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

- Done, see cover letter and here:

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Dr. Baker reports a grant and personal fees from Wellcome Trust, and personal fees from UNICEF and the World Bank, all outside the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The other authors declare no competing interests.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

- Updated data availability statement added in cover letter and here:

Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical and legal restrictions linked to the content of sensitive patient information. Anonymized data can be requested via Carl Otto Schell (Department of Internal medicine, Nyköping hospital, S-61185 Nyköping, Sweden; carl.schell@ki.se) or via Jesper Sperber (Head of department, Anaesthesia and Intensive care, Eskilstuna hospital, S-633 49 Eskilstuna, Sweden, Jesper.sperber@regionsormland.se) for researchers who provide a justified and reasonable research plan for which the data are required.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

- Done

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

17 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-10716R1Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospitalPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hvarfner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please revise.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review " Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital" by Anna Hvarfner et al.

The authors addressed the reviewer’s comments on a point-by-point basis.

My comments are as follows.

“- We agree that this is not very clearly stated in the reference. However in the first

paragraph of the “COVID-19 and oxygen” section there is a description of different

severity stages of COVID-19 stating that “…about 15 % of them have severe illness

requiring oxygen therapy, and 5% will be critically ill requiring intensive care unit

treatment.” Further down in table 1 there is a presentation of the oxygen needs for

these two groups (for severe patients 10 L/min).”

Sorry, I could not find the authors description in reference 23. Where is it listed? I could not find table 1.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Dec 2021

REVIEWER´S COMMENT

Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review " Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital" by Anna Hvarfner et al.

The authors addressed the reviewer’s comments on a point-by-point basis. My comments are as follows.

“- We agree that this is not very clearly stated in the reference. However in the first

paragraph of the “COVID-19 and oxygen” section there is a description of different

severity stages of COVID-19 stating that “…about 15 % of them have severe illness

requiring oxygen therapy, and 5% will be critically ill requiring intensive care unit

treatment.” Further down in table 1 there is a presentation of the oxygen needs for

these two groups (for severe patients 10 L/min).”

Sorry, I could not find the authors description in reference 23. Where is it listed? I could not find table 1.

OUR RESPONSE

We are sorry that our previous response was not clear. Reference 23 contains the information in the first paragraph of the “COVID-19 and oxygen” section on the first page and in Table 1 on the second page. We highlight the relevant parts in screenshots in the attached file "Response to Reviewers".

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jan 2022

Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital

PONE-D-21-10716R2

Dear Dr. Hvarfner,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for allowing me to review " Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital" by Anna Hvarfner et al. The authors addressed the reviewer’s comments on a point-by-point basis.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

10 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-10716R2

Oxygen provision to severely ill COVID-19 patients at the peak of the 2020 pandemic in a Swedish district hospital

Dear Dr. Hvarfner:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE