Agenda item

To consider a report of the Deputy Director of Public Health.

The report provides background information to inform the Scrutiny Committee’s discussions and deliberations about alcohol services, including the national policy context and key service data.

A presentation will also be made at the meeting by commissions on current local provision to help ‘set the scene’ for the Review.

It is recommended that the Scrutiny Committee consider this paper and the presentation which will be delivered at the meeting, and discuss the key themes.

Officer contact: Alison Leigh, 0161 474 3017, alison.leigh@stockport.gov.uk

Donna Sager (Deputy Director of Public Health), accompanied by Alison Leigh (Community Safety and Neighbourhoods Manager, Public Health Substances Lead), Philip Leigh (Community Safety Operations Manager Substances, Commissioning & Policy Team), Simon Armour (Senior Public Health Adviser (Alcohol)) and Toria Dante (START Manager), attended the meeting and made a presentation on alcohol related issues in Stockport. The presentation sought to ‘set the scene’ for the Scrutiny Committee’s Review of Alcohol Services.

The presentation covered the following issues:-

·         On outline project plan for the Review.

·         Statistical information in relation to alcohol related harm, hospital admissions and deprivation.

·         Current preventative programmes.

·         The policy on specialist treatment and data on treatment.

·         Types of treatment available.

·         The referral process and the role of START (Stockport Treatment Access to Recovery Team).

·         Current challenges and drivers for the future.

Councillors then asked questions and discussed the issues raised in the presentation. The following issues were raised:-

·         The headline trend in relation to alcohol was that it was cheaper, stronger and more easily available. There was an overall increase in adult drinking, but young people were drinking less. There was increasing drinking amongst the older age ranges. The consequence was that although good treatment services were available, there was insufficient capacity to respond to rising demand. Greater emphasise was needed on outcomes and moving patients from treatment to recovery.

·         Health indictors in relation to alcohol suggested that current performance could be improved, and invited consideration of whether current levels of expenditure on recovery were effective.

·         Messages around safe alcohol consumption were often difficult to get across, particularly in relation to units. The clinical definition of ‘binge’ drinking was often much less than the public perception of what this term meant.

·         Although the amount women drink had increased over the last decade, this was now declining as part of the general decline. However, harmful levels of drinking were increasing.

·         START now acted as ‘gatekeeper’ to detox programmes so greater emphasis was placed on ensuring appropriate referrals and greater preparatory work before this took place. This had led to a reduction in the number of repeat detox treatments as there was greater emphasis on outcomes and recovery. Where residential detox was necessary, there was a short waiting time between initial assessment and placement within treatment.

·         There was research suggesting that many people who drank unsafe amounts of alcohol were able to resolve, manage or reduce this by themselves, although this was difficult to measure.

·         There was a strong recovery movement developing in Stockport, built on mutual support of those in recovery. These schemes, such as the Green Man project in Woodbank Park, were generated by those in recovery and were more sustainable because of that.

·         Social isolation amongst older residents may be a factor in unsafe, and unsocial, drinking.

·         There were also in-direct health implications of drinking, such as obesity from the ‘empty calories’.

·         It was difficult to assess the cost of alcohol misuse on council services, although the NHS had done work in this area. Research by the University of Sheffield had been done to estimate these costs.

·         Given the scale of the problem, how long would it take for changes to policies and services have to show any impact, and would any savings be accrued to those agencies making the difficult decisions?

·         The development of the Integrated Safeguarding and Prevention Service for children and young people was an example of a more holistic service, which would help with prevention of risky behaviour by building resilience.

·         It was the aspiration of the Council to continue to help every person who sought it, although it was not possible for professionals to maintain that support for the duration of someone’s recovery. It was important not to over-medicalise treatment and support, and the input of former users was invaluable. In many cases they were more challenging to clients and were willing to have difficult conversations in circumstances that professionals would be reluctant to.

·         The wider cultural and societal factors influencing drinking limited the effectiveness of preventative measures.

·         A person’s ‘recovery capital’ (such as a job, family support) had a significant impact on a person’s ability to recover. Often those entering services had very low levels of this capital.

RESOLVED – (1) That Donna Sager, Alison Leigh, Philip Leigh, Simon Armour and Toria Dante be thanked for their attendance and presentation.

(2) That the outline project plan set out in the presentation form the basis for the Review and that the Democratic Services Manager be requested to circulate the slides in advance of the next meeting.