NHS reorganisation – rearranging deckchairs or game changers

When Tony Blair’s Labour Government came to power in 1997, the health service was reorganised. Lots of people changed jobs but the changes were superficial and (as it turned out) mostly ephemeral. The Labour Government certainly left one great monument to health – the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). When the Coalition Government came in, they rearranged the furniture with a vengeance and, it might fairly be said, without permission from the owners. We are now settling down to do the same work in our new chairs, but what about a legacy from this reorganisation? Has the Coalition Government left behind something enduring, controversial, bold, and potentially game changing? In my opinion, insufficient attention has been paid to a radical and exciting change which, when all the dust has settled, may stand as a signature for the Coalition Government’s reforms. Unlike the creation of NICE, reaction to this policy has been somewhat muted. Could the transfer of responsibility for preventive public health from the health service to local authorities turn out to be a master stroke?

A century ago, public health was largely about the containment and prevention of infectious diseases. Massive gains were achieved through public works, such as provision of water-born sewerage. Health services played a direct role by increasing vaccination. Of course, legislation continues to have a role in public health, for example making people to wear seatbelts or pay more for their cigarettes. Health professionals continue to have a role in prevention, largely by encouraging their patients to adopt healthier behaviour, an idea embodied in the ‘Making Every Contact Count’ (MECC)1 doctrine. But these factors aside, primary prevention really turns on services and policies carried out largely under the jurisdiction of local governments. Education, especially education in the early years is arguably the biggest determinant of health,2 since much of the social, psychological and even neurological substrate for further responsible citizenship is laid down in the first three years of life. Right ‘up there’ with education, we must mention crime prevention – indeed the underlying conditions for poor educational and social achievement and for criminal behaviour are one and the same (or at least largely overlapping)3. Child Support policy is also crucial, both for accident prevention and for encouraging exercise. Lastly, local authorities are responsible for social services, a service which has potential large impacts on education (as mentioned above) and directly on health.

All of these services – education, crime prevention, transport and social services – have effects that lie outside health and in all cases the main intended effect is not a health-related one (unless health is given a very wide definition, but when a word is made to mean everything, it starts to mean nothing, and so I am using health in the colloquial sense). It could, of course, be very cogently argued that policy can be adequately guided to take health considerations into account, and give them their due weight, without bringing part of the public health function into the local government. Moreover, it must be conceded that there is, as yet, no evidence that the policy will work. I know of no international comparisons that provide empirical support for the policy.

It could be argued that a minimal condition for this radical shift in policy should be demonstrable deficiency in the existing system – we should not repair something that ‘ain’t broke’. However, there is plenty of headroom for improvement. Britain incarcerates more of its citizens than most European countries; in 2009, it had the second highest prison rate in Western Europe behind Spain. We seem to have a particularly large proportion of homes with a single unemployed parent which perpetuate themselves to generate a vicious cycle of deprivation.

Of course, the origins of crime and poverty lie deep, and it is far from clear that inculcating public health physicians to local authorities will significantly ameliorate the problem – why should it?

Well, I think I can make an argument as to why the policy has a chance of success. So I’ll start with an ‘Enlightenment’ premise that, insofar as policy can be successful, this can only be achieved by policies which maximise the probability of achieving desired objectives. This in turn can only be achieved by generating, collecting and using evidence about what works. And it just so happens that, at this moment in history, expertise in generating, assembling and analysing evidence is resident mainly within health. This is somewhat ironic because the evidence-based movement – based on synthesising evidence from multiple sources – started in education4. Nevertheless, when I recently attended the Campbell Colloquium (where evidence concerning crime, education, social services, transport and microeconomics is assembled each year) I found that over half the presentations were given by health professionals.

I have the privilege of directing a large National Institute of Health Research funded centre, a network known as a CLAHRC (Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care). For many years now I have been working with local authorities (most notably Sandwell through John Middleton and Worcester through Richard Harling). Our aim has been to collaborate with policy makers and thereby integrating evidence from the international literature, with the particular circumstances prevailing at a local level – a melding of knowledge, sometimes referred to as knowledge management. Collaboration at the heart of local government offers a powerful voice within the local authority and a chance to promote evidence-based policy. My colleagues and I in the CLAHRC will seek to capitalise on this new policy, both for knowledge management purposes and also to design studies to generate new knowledge. I enclose a short synopsis (a CLAHRC BITE) to give an example of the kind of collaborative work that we now propose to carry out with local authorities.

Use of knowledge management to design a service delivery intervention and the research agenda BITE

References:
[1] Health Committee – The Government’s Alcohol Strategy Written evidence from the NHS Confederation (GAS 64). Available from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhealth/132/132vw60.htm (accessed on 22 January 2013).

[2] Hallam A. The Effectiveness of Interventions to Address Health Inequalities in the Early Years: A Review of Relevant Literature. Scottish Government. 2008. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/231209/0063075.pdf (Accessed 24 January 2013)

[3] Middleton J. Crime is a public health problem. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. 1998; 14(1): 24-28

[4] Glass, N. Sure Start: The Development of an Early Intervention Programme for Young Children in the United Kingdom. Children and Society. 1999; 13: 257-264

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s