A mixed-method outcome evaluation of a specialist Alcohol Hospital Liaison Team

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of an alcohol hospital liaison team at reducing alcohol specific hospital attendances and admissions. Methods: In a mixed method evaluation 96 patients who accessed the team were monitored using data for alcohol specific hospital attendances and accident and emergency (A&E) admissions before, during, and after engaging with the team. A feedback survey was sent to patients and a focus group was held with staff from the team to identify barriers and facilitators to the successful delivery of this service. Results: No differences were observed when looking at alcohol admissions or A&E attendances before patients engaged with the service to those after discharge. Whilst hospital admissions decreased slightly, and A&E attendances increased slightly, these differences were not significant. Hospital admissions and A&E attendances increased significantly during engagement with the service. The focus group identified confusion over who should be delivering brief interventions, and that the team were holding onto patients for too long. Conclusions:The results of this evaluation demonstrated that this team were not effective at reducing alcohol attendances or admissions due to a number of factors. Policy makers should make note of the barriers to effectiveness highlighted in this paper before commissioning alcohol care teams in the future.

Service Evaluation of an Exercise on Referral Scheme for Adults with Existing Health Conditions in the United Kingdom

“…With this in mind, and due to the wide variation in available ERSs within the UK, it is important to evaluate such schemes to see if they have any impact on increasing PA. This paper reports a co-production evaluation which was part of a larger study between a university and a local authority in the North East of England looking at how academics and public health practitioners can work together to evaluate locally commissioned services [25][26][27][28]. Often evidence informing public health initiatives tends to be dominated by tightly controlled, university led intervention trials, which can raise questions about how translational findings are [29].…”

Electing for public health

“…8 It also raises a constant priority for public health, that of surveillance and research, covered in peer-reviewed papers on health knowledge and on alcohol use. 9,10…”

“…8 It also raises a constant priority for public health, that of surveillance and research, covered in peer-reviewed papers on health knowledge and on alcohol use. 9,10 Finally, the account of the bombing attack in Boston in 2013 is a reminder that emergency response is also a key responsibility, 11 as well as the importance of good communications. Emergency preparedness from the UK perspective continues this theme.…”