Kerin Hannon

Teenage drinking, alcohol availability and pricing: a cross-sectional study of risk and protective factors for alcohol-related harms in school children

BackgroundThere is a lack of empirical analyses examining how alcohol consumption patterns in children relate to harms. Such intelligence is required to inform parents, children and policy relating to the provision and use of alcohol during childhood. Here, we examine drinking habits and associated harms in 15-16 year olds and explore how this can inform public health advice on child drinking.MethodsAn opportunistic survey of 15-16 year olds (n = 9,833) in North West England was undertaken to determine alcohol consumption patterns, drink types consumed, drinking locations, methods of access and harms encountered. Cost per unit of alcohol was estimated based on a second survey of 29 retail outlets. Associations between demographics, drinking behaviours, alcohol pricing and negative outcomes (public drinking, forgetting things after drinking, violence when drunk and alcohol-related regretted sex) were examined.ResultsProportions of drinkers having experienced violence when drunk (28.8%), alcohol-related regretted sex (12.5%) and forgetting things (45.3%), or reporting drinking in public places (35.8%), increased with drinking frequency, binge frequency and units consumed per week. At similar levels of consumption, experiencing any negative alcohol-related outcome was lower in those whose parents provided alcohol. Drunken violence was disproportionately associated with being male and greater deprivation while regretted sex and forgetting things after drinking were associated with being female. Independent of drinking behaviours, consuming cheaper alcohol was related to experiencing violence when drunk, forgetting things after drinking and drinking in public places.ConclusionThere is no safe level of alcohol consumption for 15-16 year olds. However, while abstinence removes risk of harms from personal alcohol consumption, its promotion may also push children into accessing drink outside family environments and contribute to higher risks of harm. Strategies to reduce alcohol-related harms in children should ensure bingeing is avoided entirely, address the excessively low cost of many alcohol products, and tackle the ease with which it can be accessed, especially outside of supervised environments.

Identifying unintended consequences of quality indicators: a qualitative study

Background For the first 5 years of the UK primary care pay for performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), quality indicators were introduced without piloting. However, in 2009, potential new indicators were piloted in a nationally representative sample of practices. This paper describes an in-depth exploration of family physician, nurse and other primary-care practice staff views of the value of piloting with a particular focus on unintended consequences of 13 potential new QOF indicators. Method Fifty-seven family-practice professionals were interviewed in 24 representative practices across England. Results Almost all interviewees emphasised the value of piloting in terms of an opportunity to identify unintended consequences of potential QOF indicators in ‘real world’ settings with staff who deliver day-to-day care to patients. Four particular types of unintended consequences were identified: measure fixation, tunnel vision, misinterpretation and potential gaming. ‘Measure fixation,’ an inappropriate attention on isolated aspects of care, appeared to be the key unintended consequence. In particular, if the palliative care indicator had been introduced without piloting, this might have incentivised poorer care in a minority of practices with potential harm to vulnerable patients. Conclusions It is important to identify concerns and experiences about unintended consequences of indicators at an early stage when there is time to remove or adapt problem indicators. Since the UK government currently spends over £1 billion each year on QOF, the £150 000 spent on each piloting cohort (0.0005% of the total QOF budget) appears to be good value for money.

Recording patient preferences for end-of-life care as an incentivized quality indicator: what do general practice staff think?

Introduction: Since April 2009, indicators for the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pilot have been developed and piloted across a nationally representative sample of practices. In October 2009 a single palliative care indicator was piloted for 6 months that looked at, ‘the percentage of patients on the palliative care register who have a preferred place to receive end-of-life care documented in the records’. Aim: The aim of this study was to gain the views and experiences of general practice staff on whether the inclusion of a single incentivized indicator to record the preferred place to receive end-of-life care would improve the quality of palliative care. Any issues arising from its implementation in a pay-for-performance scheme were also explored. Methods: Interviews took place with 57 members of staff in 24 practices: 21 GPs, 16 practice managers, 12 nurses and eight others (mostly information technology experts). Results: The indicator was not deemed appropriate for incentivization due to concerns about incentivizing an isolated, single issue within a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and complex topic. Palliative care was seen to be too sensitive and patient specific to be amenable to population-level quality measurement. In implementation, the indicator would pose potential harm to patients who may be asked about their end-of-life care at an inappropriate time and by a member of staff who may not be best placed to address this sensitive topic. Conclusions: The most appropriate time to ask a patient about end-of-life care is subjective and patient specific and therefore does not lend itself to an inflexible single indicator. Focusing on one isolated question simplifies and distracts from a multi-faceted and complex issue and may lead to patient harm.