Jump to comment:

• Local versus Nationwide
  Lisa McNally
  Published on: 30 March 2017

• Published on: 30 March 2017

  Local versus Nationwide

  • Lisa McNally, Consultant in Public Health Bracknell Forest Council

  This is an excellent article which serves to highlight the value of Public Health work in economic terms. The findings need to be taken into account as future health and social care systems evolve. For example, in the UK, Sustainability & Transformation Plans (STPs) will only truly be sustainable if they get past paying lip service to Public Health programmes and actually invest in their implementation.

  One aspect of the paper that is less helpful, however, is the distinction between 'local' and 'national' Public Health programmes. Such a distinction is arguably unclear and invalid given the fact that many national programmes require effective local implementation in order to be effective. This local implementation includes local investment, local co-design of delivery and local promotion and engagement of stakeholders and residents. In the UK, this work is undertaken by Public Health teams in local authorities in partnership with Clinical Commissioning Groups, Primary Care teams, Pharmacists and the Voluntary Sector. Effective local implementation also relies to some degree on co-design with residents.

  To take an example from the list of 'National' interventions, family planning programmes in the UK are usually funded from the local Public Health budget and implemented according to a local strategy. For example, in some areas universal provision is supplemented by outreach services aimed at offering vulnerable women...

  Show More

  This is an excellent article which serves to highlight the value of Public Health work in economic terms. The findings need to be taken into account as future health and social care systems evolve. For example, in the UK, Sustainability & Transformation Plans (STPs) will only truly be sustainable if they get past paying lip service to Public Health programmes and actually invest in their implementation.

  One aspect of the paper that is less helpful, however, is the distinction between 'local' and 'national' Public Health programmes. Such a distinction is arguably unclear and invalid given the fact that many national programmes require effective local implementation in order to be effective. This local implementation includes local investment, local co-design of delivery and local promotion and engagement of stakeholders and residents. In the UK, this work is undertaken by Public Health teams in local authorities in partnership with Clinical Commissioning Groups, Primary Care teams, Pharmacists and the Voluntary Sector. Effective local implementation also relies to some degree on co-design with residents.

  To take an example from the list of 'National' interventions, family planning programmes in the UK are usually funded from the local Public Health budget and implemented according to a local strategy. For example, in some areas universal provision is supplemented by outreach services aimed at offering vulnerable women long acting contraception that enables them to take more control over their family planning. Another example is childhood vaccination, which while delivered according to a national schedule, relies on local work with schools and primary care to maximise uptake.

  Public Health is cost effective. However, we mustn't make the mistake of thinking that nationwide 'one size fits all' programmes can fulfill its potential. Our population's appetite for being 'done unto' is waning fast - and we need to get back to recognising the role of co-design and implementation at a local community level if we are to sustain enthusiasm for Public Health work.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top