By Public Health England (2018)
In the government’s Tobacco Control Plan for England, Public Health England (PHE) was asked to update its 2015 evidence review on e-cigarettes and other novel nicotine delivery systems annually until the end of the current Parliament in 2022.
PHE commissioned a group of leading tobacco control researchers from the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS) to produce this report, which underwent international peer review.
By National Audit Office (2018)
This report examines the progress the Department of Health
and Social Care, NHS England and NHS Improvement have
made towards achieving financial balance.
By the CQC (2018)
This briefing flags up concerns, identified during the course of CQC’s inspections, about some independent sector services that offer residential care to people undergoing detoxification from drugs and alcohol. In 2016/17, it is estimated that about 1% of people in alcohol and drug treatment received this type of intervention. The briefing, which includes recommendations, is for providers, commissioners and other local and national bodies that play a part in assuring the quality of substance misuse services.
By UK Health Forum
Public Health eLearning Toolkit (PHeLT) has been developed by qualified information professionals at the UK Health Forum, to support the public health workforce in using and appraising information in their work.
The PHeLT toolkit brings together a suite of resources to help you improve your skills in the areas of critical appraisal, understanding copyright, and ethical use of information, including correct referencing.
The aim of PHeLT is to save the public health workforce time in making effective use of the evidence by providing a single point of call for accessing resources to support the use of evidence. PHeLT is different from other elearning resources because it includes information on critical appraisal of grey literature, something that is not covered by other resources. An explanation of grey literature and it’s importance in public health is available in the FAQs section of the website.
PHeLT contains links only to existing, high quality resources on information skills such as referencing and critical appraisal. The majority of resources linked to from PHeLT have been made freely available by their publishers. However, the toolkits do contains some resources that are paid for, or require registration. This is indicated in the resource summary.
You may be interested in an upcoming free online course from the Scottish Improvement Science Collaborating Centre. The Tackling Inequalities Through Health and Social Care Design course will launch on the 19th of February 2018.
This is a free online course that’s available to staff across health and social care organisations and will support personal and professional development for staff working across all disciplines.
The trailer provides an overview, and those interested may sign up for the course now, on FutureLearn:
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/tackling-inequalities/.
The Lancet, Vol 390, Issue 10112 Pages 2527-2604
By Local Government Association (2017)
This briefing, written in partnership with Public Health England and the Association of Directors of Public Health, focuses on the Whole Systems Obesity programme, which will provide local authorities with a different approach to tackling obesity. The programme is exploring the evidence and local practice to develop guidance and tools to help councils set up a whole systems approach to obesity in their local area.
Jehu, L.M. et al. Journal of Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdx154
Published: 07 November 2017
Click here to view this article
Background
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 gave councils in England responsibility for improving the health of their populations. Public health teams were transferred from the National Health Service (NHS), accompanied by a ring-fenced public health grant. This study examines the changing role of these teams within local government.
Methods
In-depth case study research was conducted within 10 heterogeneous councils. Initial interviews (n = 90) were carried out between October 2015 and March 2016, with follow-up interviews (n = 21) 12 months later. Interviewees included elected members, directors of public health (DsPH) and other local authority officers, plus representatives from NHS commissioners, the voluntary sector and Healthwatch.
Results
Councils welcomed the contribution of public health professionals, but this was balanced against competing demands for financial resources and democratic leverage. DsPH—seen by some as a ‘protected species’—were relying increasingly on negotiating and networking skills to fulfil their role. Both the development of the existing specialist public health workforce and recruitment to, and development of, the future workforce were uncertain. This poses both threats and opportunities.
Conclusions
Currently the need for staff to retain specialist skills and maintain UKPH registration is respected. However, action is needed to address how future public health professionals operating within local government will be recruited and developed.
Dropkin, G. Journal of Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdx136
Published: 03 November 2017
Click here to view this article
Background
NHS RightCare is an NHS England programme describing itself as ‘a proven approach that delivers better patient outcomes’. It identifies opportunities for savings and quality improvements, comparing each Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) with the ‘Best 5’ of a fixed set of ‘Similar 10’ CCGs chosen using equally weighted demographic and deprivation indicators. This article tests whether these indicators are sufficient and equal weighting is appropriate, and evaluates significance.
Methods
Robust public data on lung, colorectal, and breast cancer mortality is modelled using the indicators and incidence. Peers chosen using the preferred models are compared with the Similar 10. Confidence intervals are obtained for comparator group averages. RightCare significance is simulated.
Results
Preferred models have unequally weighted covariates. Incidence is the strongest predictor of lung cancer mortality. The ‘Similar 10’ are inappropriate comparators. RightCare significance ignores variability of comparator outcomes, causing 12% Type I errors. Whilst RightCare shows 1842 annual avoidable lung cancer deaths in 80 CCGs, only 168 deaths in 8 CCGs appear exceptional using appropriate peers and CIs.
Conclusion
CCGs cannot expect to match the average performance of the RightCare ‘Best 5’. Until the methodology is examined with data of known quality, claims that RightCare is a ‘proven approach’ are unsubstantiated.