The combined influence of distance and neighbourhood deprivation on Emergency Department attendance in a large English population: a retrospective database study

YesThe frequency of visits to Emergency Departments (ED) varies greatly between populations. This may reflect variation in patient behaviour, need, accessibility, and service configuration as well as the complex interactions between these factors. This study investigates the relationship between distance, socio-economic deprivation, and proximity to an alternative care setting (a Minor Injuries Unit (MIU)), with particular attention to the interaction between distance and deprivation. It is set in a population of approximately 5.4 million living in central England, which is highly heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity, socio-economics, and distance to hospital. The study data set captured 1,413,363 ED visits made by residents of the region to National Health Service (NHS) hospitals during the financial year 2007/8. Our units of analysis were small units of census geography having an average population of 1,545. Separate regression models were made for children and adults. For each additional kilometre of distance from a hospital, predicted child attendances fell by 2.2% (1.7%-2.6% p<0.001) and predicted adult attendances fell by 1.5% (1.2% -1.8%, p<0.001). Compared to the least deprived quintile, attendances in the most deprived quintile more than doubled for children (incident rate ratio (IRR) = 2.19, (1.90-2.54, p<0.001)) and adults (IRR 2.26, (2.01-2.55, p<0.001)). Proximity of an MIU was significant and both adult and child attendances were greater in populations who lived further away from them, suggesting that MIUs may reduce ED demand. The interaction between distance and deprivation was significant. Attendance in deprived neighbourhoods reduces with distance to a greater degree than in less deprived ones for both adults and children. In conclusion, ED use is related to both deprivation and distance, but the effect of distance is modified by deprivation

Weekend admission to hospital has a higher risk of death in the elective setting than in the emergency setting: a retrospective database study of national health service hospitals in England

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although acute hospitals offer a twenty-four hour seven day a week service levels of staffing are lower over the weekends and some health care processes may be less readily available over the weekend. Whilst it is thought that emergency admission to hospital on the weekend is associated with an increased risk of death, the extent to which this applies to elective admissions is less well known. We investigated the risk of death in elective and elective patients admitted over the weekend versus the weekdays.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective statistical analysis of routinely collected acute hospital admissions in England, involving all patient discharges from all acute hospitals in England over a year (April 2008-March 2009), using a logistic regression model which adjusted for a range of patient case-mix variables, seasonality and admission over a weekend separately for elective and emergency (but excluding zero day stay emergency admissions discharged alive) admissions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 1,535,267 elective admissions, 91.7% (1,407,705) were admitted on the weekday and 8.3% (127,562) were admitted on the weekend. The mortality following weekday admission was 0.52% (7,276/1,407,705) compared with 0.77% (986/127,562) following weekend admission. Of the 3,105,249 emergency admissions, 76.3% (2,369,316) were admitted on the weekday and 23.7% (735,933) were admitted on the weekend. The mortality following emergency weekday admission was 6.53% (154,761/2,369,316) compared to 7.06% (51,922/735,933) following weekend admission. After case-mix adjustment, weekend admissions were associated with an increased risk of death, especially in the elective setting (elective Odds Ratio: 1.32, 95% Confidence Interval 1.23 to 1.41); vs emergency Odds Ratio: 1.09, 95% Confidence Interval 1.05 to 1.13).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Weekend admission appears to be an independent risk factor for dying in hospital and this risk is more pronounced in the elective setting. Given the planned nature of elective admissions, as opposed to the unplanned nature of emergency admissions, it would seem less likely that this increased risk in the elective setting is attributable to unobserved patient risk factors. Further work to understand the relationship between weekend processes of care and mortality, especially in the elective setting, is required.</p

Regression co-efficients for a model of child attendance at Emergency Departments.

<p>Regression co-efficients for a model of child attendance at Emergency Departments.</p

Map of the West Midlands region showing the location of Emergency Departments close to its population in financial year 2007–2008 (inset: the location of the West Midlands region in Great Britain).

<p>Map of the West Midlands region showing the location of Emergency Departments close to its population in financial year 2007–2008 (inset: the location of the West Midlands region in Great Britain).</p

Modelled attendance change with distance at various levels of neighbourhood income deprivation, attenders aged > = 15.

<p>Modelled attendance change with distance at various levels of neighbourhood income deprivation, attenders aged > = 15.</p

Modelled attendance change with distance at various levels of neighbourhood income deprivation, attenders aged <15.

<p>Modelled attendance change with distance at various levels of neighbourhood income deprivation, attenders aged <15.</p

Regression co-efficients for a model of adult attendance at Emergency Departments.

<p>Regression co-efficients for a model of adult attendance at Emergency Departments.</p

Aflibercept in wet AMD beyond the first year of treatment: recommendations by an expert roundtable panel

This paper provides expert recommendations on administration of aflibercept in wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) after Year 1 (Y1), based on a roundtable discussion held in London, UK in November 2014. The goals of treatment after Y1 are to maintain visual and anatomical gains whilst minimising treatment burden and using resources effectively. The treatment decision should be made at the seventh injection visit (assuming the label has been followed) in Y1, and three approaches are proposed: (a) eyes with active disease on imaging/examination but with stable visual acuity (VA) at the end of Y1 should continue with fixed 8-weekly dosing; (b) eyes with inactive disease on imaging/examination and stable VA should be managed using a 'treat and extend' (T&amp;E) regimen. T&amp;E involves treating and then extending the interval until the next treatment, by 2-week intervals, to a maximum of 12 weeks, provided the disease remains inactive. If there is new evidence of disease activity, treatment is administered and the interval to the next treatment shortened; and (c) if there has been no disease activity for ?3 consecutive visits, a trial of monitoring without treatment may be appropriate, initiated at the end of Y1 or at any time during Y2. Where possible, VA testing, OCT imaging and injection should be performed at the same visit. The second eye should be monitored to detect fellow eye involvement. In bilateral disease, the re-treatment interval should be driven by the better-seeing eye or, if the VA is similar, the eye with the more active disease