Search

Background: Understanding factors that drive admissions is critical to containing cost and optimising hospital operations. We hypothesised that, due to multiple factors, emergency physicians would be more likely to admit a patient seen later in their shift., Methods: Retrospective study examining all patient visits at a large academic hospital from July 2010 to July 2016. Patients with missing data (n=191) were excluded. 294 031 emergency department (ED) visits were included in the final analysis. The exposure of interest was the time during the shift at which a patient was first evaluated by the clinician, and outcome was hospital admission. We used a generalised estimating equation with physician as the clustering level to adjust for patient age, gender, Emergency Severity Index (ESI, 1=most severe illness, 5=least severe illness) and 24 hours clock time. We also conducted a stratified analysis by three ESI categories., Results: From the 294 031 ED visits, 5977 were seen in the last hour of the shift. Of patients seen in the last shift hour, 43% were admitted versus 39% seen at any other time during the shift. There was a significant association between being evaluated in the last hour (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06) and last quarter (RR 1.02, 1.01 to 1.03) of shift and the likelihood of admission. Patients with an ESI Score of 4-5 saw the largest effect sizes (RR 1.62, 0.996-2.635 for last hour and RR 1.24, 0.996-1.535 for last quarter) but these were not statistically significant. Additionally, there was a trend towards increased likelihood of admission later in shift; the relative risk of admission was 1.04 in hour 6, (1.02-1.05), 1.03 in hour 7 (1.01-1.05), 1.04 in hour 8 (1.01-1.06) and 1.06 in hour 9 (1.013-1.101)., Conclusions: There is a small but significant association between a patient being evaluated later in an emergency physician's shift and their likelihood of being admitted to the hospital., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Housing quality, which includes structural and environmental risks, has been associated with multiple physical health outcomes including injury and asthma. Cockroach and mouse infestations can be prime manifestations of diminished housing quality. While the respiratory health effects of pest infestation are well documented, little is known about the association between infestation and mental health outcomes. To address this gap in knowledge and given the potential to intervene to reduce pest infestation, we assessed the association between household pest infestation and symptoms of depression among public housing residents. We conducted a cross-sectional study in 16 Boston Housing Authority (BHA) developments from 2012 to 2014 in Boston, Massachusetts. Household units were randomly selected and one adult (n = 461) from each unit was surveyed about depressive symptoms using the Center for Epidemiologic Study-Depression (CES-D) Scale, and about pest infestation and management practices. In addition, a home inspection for pests was performed. General linear models were used to model the association between pest infestation and high depressive symptoms. After adjusting for important covariates, individuals who lived in homes with current cockroach infestation had almost three times the odds of experiencing high depressive symptoms (adjusted OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.9-4.4) than those without infestation. Dual infestation (cockroach and mouse) was associated with over five times the odds (adjusted odds = 5.1, 95% CI 3.0-8.5) of experiencing high depressive symptoms. Using a robust measure of cockroach and mouse infestation, and a validated depression screener, we identified associations between current infestation and depressive symptoms. Although the temporal directionality of this association remains uncertain, these findings suggest that the health impact of poor housing conditions extend beyond physical health to include mental health. The study adds important information to the growing body of evidence that housing contributes to population health and improvements in population health may not be possible without addressing deficiencies in the housing infrastructure.