
The simple bedroom trick to help you sleep better during a heatwave – as doctor warns of common mistake
CREATING the perfect bedroom temperature is key for sleeping better through hot summer nights.
And it can all come down to the precise position of your door, according to a sleep specialist.
2
With temperatures set to exceed 30C in some parts of the England by the weekend, many Brits will be facing an uncomfortable night's rest.
But the way bedroom doors within sleeping spaces are positioned affects airflow patterns, says Dr Jordan Burns from AmeriSleep.
Depending on the angle chosen, it can create cooling cross-ventilation or trap heat.
"Most people focus solely on windows for cooling, but bedroom doors control how air circulates throughout your sleeping space," Dr Burns said.
"A properly positioned door can make the difference between restful sleep and hours of uncomfortable tossing and turning."
Dr Burns recommends keeping bedroom doors fully open during daytime hours if the rest of the home is cooler, allowing for maximum air exchange between spaces.
This approach works particularly well for rooms that receive direct sunlight.
"When outside temperatures climb higher than those inside your home, keeping your bedroom door wide open allows cooler air from north-facing rooms to circulate throughout," he said.
"This creates a natural current that pushes hot air up and out while drawing cooler air in from below."
For night-time cooling, however, he recommends a more precise approach to door positioning.
Five best stretches to improve sleep
"The optimal angle for a bedroom door at night is approximately 45 degrees," Dr Burns explained.
"This specific position creates what fluid dynamics calls a 'venturi effect' that accelerates airflow through the narrower opening, pulling hot air out more efficiently than a fully open door would."
Many people make the common mistake of either leaving doors completely open or fully closed during hot weather.
But a completely open door actually slows down airflow in many cases because the opening is too large to create the pressure differentials that drive air movement, said Dr Burns.
He added: "Conversely, a fully closed door prevents any air exchange, trapping heat and moisture that build up while you sleep."
And door positioning must work together with window management for maximum cooling effect.
"If your windows and door create a straight-line path, you'll generate the strongest possible airflow through your bedroom," Dr Burns said.
"The ideal setup in UK homes is having your bedroom door at 45 degrees with windows open on the opposite wall, creating a direct pathway for air movement."
Furniture placement in relation to door positioning is also important.
He also advised keeping furniture at least 30cm away from the door swing path.
Tall wardrobes or dressers near doors can block airflow and create stagnant air pockets where heat accumulates.
For flats and apartments where cross-ventilation options are limited, Dr Burns recommends changing door positions throughout the day based on sun exposure and temperature variations.
"In single-aspect flats, try keeping your bedroom door closed during the day if that room receives direct sunlight," he said.
"Then open it to precisely 45 degrees at night when the rest of the flat has cooled down."
Research from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government found that certain homes are particularly vulnerable to overheating, including "flats on the top floor because heat rises" and "homes with opening windows on just one side of the property, as this means there is less ventilation through the home."
Dr Burns pointed out that proper door positioning can help address these exact vulnerabilities.
"For top floor flats, keeping bedroom doors positioned at 45 degrees at night helps draw cooler air up from lower levels of the building," he said.
"For single-aspect properties, strategically angling your bedroom door creates a secondary airflow path that compensates for the lack of cross-ventilation from windows."
And the sleep expert suggests a simple method to test if your door positioning is working effectively for bedroom cooling.
"Place a lightweight ribbon or tissue near the gap between the door and frame," he explained.
"If it moves toward the door, you're successfully drawing air through the room. If it remains still or moves away, adjust your window and door configuration until you achieve proper airflow.
"Good sleep remains possible during hot weather if you understand how to control airflow in your home.
"Door positioning is a cost-free intervention that can improve your sleeping environment while reducing both energy costs and environmental impact compared to mechanical cooling options."
Other ways to keep cool at night during the heat
Use fans
Strategically position fans to circulate air, potentially placing a tray of ice in front of it for a cooling effect.
Cool down your bed
Consider using a thin cotton sheet, chilling socks in the fridge, or even freezing your sheets briefly.
Take a cool shower or bath
Taking a lukewarm or cool shower or bath before bed can help lower your body temperature.
Stay hydrated
Drink plenty of water throughout the day and night, but avoid excessive amounts right before bed to prevent waking up.
Wear light clothing to bed
Opt for loose-fitting, breathable fabrics like cotton.
Consider your sleeping position
Sleeping on your side can help with heat dissipation.
Avoid alcohol and caffeine
These can disrupt sleep and dehydrate you, making it harder to stay cool.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Why I'm praying assisted dying bill passes major vote - even though it's not going to happen in my lifetime
On Friday, the social fabric of England and Wales might be changed forever. MPs are set to vote on the assisted dying bill and supporters are confident that they have the numbers to win. But the hugely controversial legislation polarises opinion. Communities remain divided, and medical colleagues can't agree. Three royal colleges have withdrawn support for the bill in its current form. They want more time to be given for further scrutiny of the legislation. 1:12 Frank Sutton does not have time. When we went to Frank's home in East Dulwich, London, last November to watch the vote unfold she already had terminal liver disease and cancer. As the vote was passed with a majority of 55, Frank broke down in tears and said: "Finally, I can die in peace." Frank is unlikely to live long enough to see assisted dying introduced in England and Wales. If the legislation passes, it will be introduced in four years. Frank now suffers from diabetes and fibromyalgia. She said: "On top of everything I've got, to start developing more comorbidities, I have a massive thought in my head, which I live with every day, which is, is my body, am I on the road to the end, you know, is my body just giving up? "I mean, I was taking morphine anyway for pain, but now I'm living on morphine, and that's not a life that you want." But even as MPs prepare to vote, many important questions remain over who will take responsibility for determining a patient's mental capacity and their prognosis. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said it was approaching Friday "with trepidation". Dr Annabel Price, the RCPsych's lead on assisted dying, told Sky News: "If this bill as it stands proceeds through the rest of the parliamentary process, we as psychiatrists are left in a situation where there are so many unknowns about what is expected of us, about what patients can expect and about the safety of the process. "We will continue to engage and there may be opportunities for reconsideration at further points in the bill. But yes, I approach this professionally with trepidation." The Royal College of GPs says the assisted dying process should happen outside of general practice. Dr Susi Caesar is in favour of the bill being passed and feels it is okay for the medical community to be so divided on the issue. She said: "I think people have the right to make their own choices and absolutely I would not want to see anybody forced into being part of this process who didn't. Our current system is broken and this law would go a long way towards fixing it, at least for a certain group of people." 1:43 But the Royal Colleges of Physicians (RCP) also has reservations about the bill in its current form. It says it would be hard for a panel of experts who have no connection to a patient requesting an assisted death to determine if the person is being coerced or has mental capacity. Dr John Dean, clinical vice president at the RCP has concerns, saying: "Currently decisions clearly are made by patients but agreed by single doctors and then the social worker and psychiatrists are not meeting the patient and those that have been caring for them. "This has to be done in keeping with modern clinical practice which is complex decisions made with patients and families by teams." But for patients like Frank, these concerns have not changed her mind. She said: "I'm praying for Friday that it still goes through because, like I said, it's not going to happen in my lifetime, but the thought that people like me who still try to look nice, who still tried to have a life and everything, that they can just have some peace of mind and they can have a weight lifted off their shoulders knowing that they're going to be able to do it peacefully with their family."


BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Breakthrough Alzheimer's drugs too pricey to be offered on NHS
Two breakthrough Alzheimer's drugs have been deemed far too expensive, for too little benefit, to be offered on the medicines are the first to slow the disease, which may give people extra time living National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded they were a poor use of taxpayers' money and said funding them could lead to other services being say it is a disappointment, but dementia experts have also supported the decision. The two drugs, donanemab and lecanemab, both help the body clear a gungy protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer's medicines do not reverse or even stop the disease, rather brain power is lost more slowly with trials of these drugs were celebrated as a scientific triumph as they showed, for the first time, it was possible to change the course of Alzheimer' since then a row has developed over the cost of the drugs and how meaningful the benefit is. The official price in the US is £20,000-£25,000 per patient per year. What the NHS would pay is 70,000 people in England with mild dementia would have been eligible, potentially putting the bill in the region of £1.5bn a year for the drugs resources, including regularly infusing the drugs directly into spinal fluid and frequent brain scans to manage dangerous side effects, would also massively ramp up the cost. The benefit of the drugs is also debated. They potentially delay the transition from mild to moderate dementia by four-to-six months. That could mean more time without needing daily care, driving, being present for significant family events and Prof Rob Howard, from University College London, said real-world benefits "were too small to be noticeable". In trials of lecanemab, patients were better off by 0.45 points, on an 18-point scale ranging from healthy to severe he said the cost would "have been close to the cost of a nurse's salary for each treated patient".The decision not to fund the drugs is not a surprise. The first assessment last year concluded they were not Knight, director of medicines evaluation at NICE, acknowledged the latest news would be "disappointing" but said the benefits were "modest" at best while requiring "substantial resources"."If they were approved they could displace other essential treatments and services that deliver significant benefits to patients," she said. NICE said its appraisal had factored in potential savings in the cost of providing care, but the drugs were still deemed decisions apply to the NHS in England, but are normally adopted by Wales and Northern Ireland too. Scotland has its own method for approving pharmaceutical companies have three weeks to raise concerns about how the review was performed, otherwise the decision becomes final on 23 pharmaceutical companies involved, Eisai for lecanemab and Eli Lilly for donanemab, say they will appeal against the decision. Nick Burgin, from Eisai said the NHS "is not ready" for the challenge of tackling Alzheimer's and flaws in the process meant their drug would have been rejected "even if Eisai provided lecanemab to the NHS for free".Eli Lilly, the company behind donanemab, has already expressed its disappointment. "If the system can't deliver scientific firsts to NHS patients, it is broken," said Chris Stokes, Eli Lilly's president and general manager of UK and Northern Europe. Is this a distraction or a disappointment? The sentiment was echoed by both the Alzheimer's charities. Prof Fiona Carragher, from the Alzheimer's Society said "the science is flying but the system is failing" and it was "highly disappointing" the drugs were not available on the Evans-Newton, the chief executive at Alzheimer's Research UK, said the result was "painful" and patients will miss out on this and future innovations "not because science is failing, but because the system is".However, others say NICE has made the right call. Tom Dening, professor of dementia research at the University of Nottingham, said he was "in complete support" as the benefits of the drugs were "minimal" and a "distraction" from the real issues in dementia."[Namely the] unglamorous challenge of providing people with dementia and their families with activities, care and support that we already know are beneficial for their mental and physical health," he Atticus Hainsworth, from St George's, University of London, said: "NICE is simply doing its job."Beyond lecanemab and donenamab there are 138 dementia medicines being tested in 182 trials around the Tara Spires-Jones, director of the centre for discovery brain sciences at the University of Edinburgh, said: "There is hope for safer, more effective treatments on the horizon."


Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Mother jailed for aborting baby at 39 weeks would now go unpunished
Within a week of her due date, Sarah Catt aborted her baby. She claimed that her son was stillborn and that she had buried his body, but no evidence of the baby was ever found. Catt is among a small number of women in England and Wales to face prosecution after terminating their pregnancies. However, under new regulations set to be brought in, she – and others like her – would never have been arrested. On Tuesday night, MPs voted with a majority of 242 to decriminalise those seeking an abortion at any stage of gestation and for any reason. Abortion in England and Wales is currently a criminal offence. However, it is legal if carried out up to 24 weeks and with an authorised provider, with very limited circumstances permitting one after this period. Women may also take prescribed medication at home if they are fewer than 10 weeks pregnant. The vote has divided public opinion, with many welcoming the 'hard-won victory' for women, and others believing that it goes too far, arguing that ' late-term abortions kill babies '. In September 2012, Catt, then 35, was convicted of aborting her baby when she was 39 weeks pregnant. During her trial at Leeds Crown Court, and following an analysis of her computer, jurors heard that she had bought a drug from a company in Mumbai to induce labour, and that she delivered her baby at home by herself. The judge was told that Catt had been having an affair with a work colleague for seven years, and that her husband was unaware of the pregnancy and was not consulted about her decision to have an abortion. She already had two children with her husband and had previously had a scan while 30 weeks pregnant at a hospital in Leeds, confirming the pregnancy. However, suspicions were raised when she failed to register the birth weeks later. After giving birth to her son, Catt said he was not moving or breathing, and that she buried his body but never revealed the location. She pleaded guilty to administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage. Sentencing her, after a trial in which she was described as having 'shown no remorse or given an explanation for what she did', Mr Justice Cooke said that she made a 'deliberate and calculated decision' to end her pregnancy, and that the gravity of her crime lay between murder and manslaughter. However, in June 2013, Catt had her eight-year prison sentence reduced to three-and-a-half years. Lady Justice Rafferty, heading a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal, described the original sentence as 'manifestly excessive', while Catt sobbed in the dock. Catt is among half a dozen women to have faced prosecution for having an abortion, and who, following the MPs' recent vote, would not now be criminalised. Sophie Harvey is also among them. She was just 19 when she gave birth in her bathroom. Her stillborn baby was found wrapped in a towel and placed in a household rubbish bin. Six years later, in December last year, Harvey and her partner Elliot Benham both pleaded guilty at Gloucester Crown Court to conspiracy to obtain a poison with the intent to procure a miscarriage and endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child. Harvey was sentenced to an 18-month community order, while Benham was ordered to do 150 hours of unpaid work. The court heard that they did not want the baby, but when Harvey discovered she was pregnant the foetus was found to be 28 weeks old – four weeks over the legal limit – and that they had paid for drugs to cause the abortion. According to recent Freedom of Information data released by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), between 2019 and 2023, 21 defendants (16 men and five women, aged between 24 and 59 years old) were charged with administering or procuring drugs or using instruments to induce an abortion, or child destruction. Of them, ten defendants were convicted and five were convicted on other substantive offences. Further high-profile cases have continued to divide public opinion. Nicola Packer was still bleeding and in pain when she was handcuffed. She was recovering from surgery for a stillbirth when police arrived at hospital later that day and accused her of illegally aborting her baby. Ms Packer took abortion medication, which was prescribed over the phone during the Covid-19 lockdown in November 2020, when she was aged 41. She delivered at home, and brought the foetus to a London hospital in a backpack the following day. Jurors heard that she took the medications when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, though the legal limit is 10 weeks, and that she knew this. However, Ms Packer denied this and spoke of her 'shock' at being pregnant, before breaking down, saying: 'If I had known I was that far along I wouldn't have done it. I wouldn't have put the baby or myself through it.' In May 2025, she sobbed as she was acquitted of 'unlawfully administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the 'intent to procure a miscarriage'. She had spent almost five years facing the threat of prison. Ms Packer has since spoken out about how, instead of being sent home to recuperate following her surgery, while in custody and in pain, she was not given anti-clotting medication on time, having been told it was 'not a priority'. Furthermore, in June 2023, Carla Foster was sentenced to 28 months in prison for terminating a pregnancy between 32 and 34 weeks. The then 44-year-old mother-of-three claimed she felt too ' embarrassed ' to see a doctor after becoming pregnant in 2019, and that she did not know how far along she was. She also received abortion medication over the phone during the Covid-19 pandemic, and a court heard that she lied to a nurse practitioner from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), convincing them that she was seven weeks pregnant. Shortly after, she made a 999 call telling operators that she was in labour and had suffered a miscarriage. She was initially charged with child destruction and pleaded not guilty. She later pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion, which was accepted by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal later reduced her sentence to 14 months suspended. Sitting at the London court in July 2023, Dame Victoria Sharp described her case as 'very sad', adding that 'it is a case that calls for compassion, not punishment'. In 2024, the CPS dropped its case against Bethany Cox, then 22, from Teesside, who was accused of causing her own miscarriage after purchasing drugs in 2020, as the first Covid-19 lockdown ended. At the time, Nicholas Lumley KC, her barrister, said that she had been interviewed by police in the 'throes of grief', and had been investigated for three years. It is not known how or when the baby died, and the prosecution dropped the case due to 'evidential difficulties'. As a result of MPs' vote this week, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which outlaws abortion, will be amended so that it will no longer apply to women ending their own pregnancies. That means that Ms Packer, Ms Foster, Ms Catt, Ms Cox, Ms Harvey, and others like them in similar circumstances would no longer be prosecuted. The vote was tabled by the Labour MPs Stella Creasy and Tonia Antoniazzi, who criticised the current 'Victorian' laws being used against vulnerable women, and said that the decriminalisation would ensure women do not face arrest, investigation, prosecution or imprisonment regarding any pregnancies. Following the vote, Heidi Stewart, chief executive of BPAS, hailed the vote as 'a landmark moment for women's rights in this country and the most significant change to our abortion law since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed'. In contrast, Kathleen Stock, a former philosophy professor at the University of Sussex, who was forced to quit her job in 2021 following a high-profile row with the institution over her gender-critical views, was among those criticising the vote. 'Late-term abortions kill babies,' she said. 'Viable babies.' Catherine Robinson, spokesman for Right To Life UK, also raised concerns about the implications of the vote. She said: 'Removing the legal deterrent against women having abortions outside of a clinical setting beyond 24 weeks will only make it more likely that women in vulnerable circumstances will take similar action in future, putting themselves at risk. The current legal deterrent protects women from coercion at the hands of abusive partners and from taking actions they may later regret.' The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said that the vote marked 'a dark day', and described the result as 'heartbreaking', 'horrifying', 'extreme' and 'barbaric'. According to the latest available data held by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there were 251,377 abortions for women in England and Wales in 2022. This marked the highest number since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967, and an increase of 17 per cent over the previous year. The vast majority of them were medically induced and funded by the NHS. According to recent polling by Ipsos ahead of the vote, 71 per cent of Britons think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 47 per cent believe that the current 24-week time limit for most abortions in England and Wales is 'about right'. When asked about illegal abortions, just over half (55 per cent) think that the person who performed the abortion should face a penalty. However, considerably fewer believe that the woman who had the abortion (32 per cent) or someone else who arranged the abortion (37 per cent) should face a penalty.