Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Hazardous drinking and the NHS: the costs of pessimism and the benefits of optimism

Jim McCambridge, John Strang, Chris C Butler, Francis Keaney and Peter Anderson
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (525): 247-248.
Jim McCambridge
Roles: Wellcome Trust Health Services Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Strang
Roles: Professor of Addiction Research, Director of the National Addiction Centre
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris C Butler
Roles: Professor of Primary Care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francis Keaney
Roles: Consultant Psychiatrist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Anderson
Roles: Independent Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

From its inception, the NHS has seen a period of seemingly relentless rises in alcohol consumption and the associated health and wider social harms, particularly since 1970.1 Our national performance is also deteriorating in the context of wider European trends.2

For liver cirrhosis mortality, which is a key indicator of alcohol harms in the general population, England and Wales have moved from having the lowest rates to a current rate similar to that of other western countries for both sexes and across all age groups. Scotland has moved from a similarly low position to now having some of the highest rates in western Europe. These recent increases are the steepest in western Europe.2

The cultural acceptability of both drinking and drunkenness have been promoted aggressively and expensively by the alcohol industry, and the lack of any strategic alcohol response has been a striking failure. Now, finally, this deficiency has been recognised and we have seen the development of the first national alcohol strategy for England.3

Unfortunately, politicians seem to lack the commitment to introduce potentially unpopular changes that would undoubtedly improve the health of the nation as a result of the known relationships between price, prevalence of heavy drinking and associated harms.1 This problem is compounded by the recent deregulation of local controls on licensing which will lead, in all probability, to increased alcohol availability, consumption and consequent harm.4 Not many reasons to be cheerful!

The troubling and troublesome heavily dependent drinker frequently occupies our attention when thinking about the subject of alcohol in our patient population. Few practitioners currently actively seek to identify the less visible but very much more numerous 30% or so of our patients who are drinking more than is good for their health.5 Yet, this is precisely what is required if we are to help arrest the recent steep increases in alcohol harms. This larger population of hazardous drinkers (defined as those currently drinking anything above two or three drinks in any day) are responsible for greater aggregate harms than the much smaller population of obviously problematic drinkers.6 We need to shift our focus.

A new set of expectations for general practice and other parts of the NHS to combat this growing problem is now being generated. This poses something of a dilemma. One possibility is to define this difficult subject as essentially being somebody else's problem, citing the wider societal reluctance to tackle this problem or the pressure to tackle waiting times or other priority objectives, for example. The costs of this understandable yet essentially pessimistic response will be most substantially and immediately borne by others, although we will all bear the NHS and wider social costs as taxpayers and citizens.

That we have been doing just this for some considerable time, is evidenced by the reluctance to incorporate enquiry about alcohol consumption into core activity, and the slow pace of adoption of alcohol screening and brief intervention.7 The alternative is to seize this as an opportunity to establish precisely what is the proper contribution to be made by general practice, and to identify better strategies for fostering the wide implementation of this practice. This may not be straightforward, however, as it involves engagement with a number of potentially difficult issues.

Some practitioners see intervening opportunistically with hazardous as well as problem drinkers as an entirely proper activity for the primary healthcare team, while others do not. There are different ways to organise this work, although we do not know which is most efficient and effective, nor how to make it routine and unremarkable everyday practice. Hazardous drinking is probably no different from other health compromising behaviours and payment and other incentive mechanisms should be similar. It may also be helpful to distinguish the specific role of the individual practitioner in consultations with patients and their wider role as a manager of the potential contribution to be made by their practice. For example, achieving relatively minor administrative and software adjustments may go a long way to the normalisation of alcohol screening.

The recent policy developments can be seen as a reason for optimism — if they are the beginnings rather than the conclusion of an improving national strategic response. Brief discussions with hazardous drinkers are known to be efficacious in reducing drinking for up to 1 year, and this evidence-base is particularly strong for general practice.8 These are relatively straightforward to deliver, and a variety of models are to be tested in different settings.3

The ‘Models of Care’ process9 (similar to a National Service Framework) is also planned to lead to the long overdue establishment of a genuinely nationwide treatment system for dependent drinkers. Similarly, the introduction of NHS trainers to engage with lifestyle and behaviour change issues should make addressing alcohol issues easier as part of the broader switch from ‘advice from on high to support from next door’.10

If we are pessimistic and unengaged with these issues, then we will be allowing expectations of GP activity to be formed in ways that will be costly both to public health and society as a whole. The formation of a RCGP committee on hazardous drinking may be helpful in advancing practitioner engagement with these issues, and as an advocate for public health. Of course, it is vital that government leads a wider societal effort to address what is clearly a significant social as well as health problem. However understandable the temptation, we should not be deflected by the contradictions of the wider policies and we should focus instead upon our own roles and potential contribution, rather than simply waiting on others. GPs cannot solve this problem by themselves, although such efforts may inspire others. The views of the authors should now be plain, but it is how the practitioner weighs up these potential costs and the benefits that really matters. We must constantly remind ourselves that the patient to be considered is NOT the person whose drinking has already had a devastating impact on their entire lives, but rather the person who is drinking a little more than is good for their health right now.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Academy of Medical Sciences
    (2004) Calling time: the nation's drinking as a major health issue (Academy of Medical Sciences, London).
  2. ↵
    1. Leon DA,
    2. McCambridge J
    (2006) Liver cirrhosis mortality rates in Britain from 1950 to 2002: an analysis of routine data. Lancet 367:52–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Cabinet Office
    (2004) Alcohol harm reduction strategy for England (Strategy Unit, London).
  4. ↵
    1. Room R
    (2004) Disabling the public interest: alcohol strategies and policies for England. Addiction 99:1083–1089.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. National Statistics
    , http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8861.xls (accessed 14 Mar 2006).
  6. ↵
    1. Rose G
    (1992) The strategy of preventive medicine (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
  7. ↵
    1. Deehan A,
    2. Templeton L,
    3. Taylor C,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Low detection rates, negative attitudes and the failure to meet the ‘Health of the Nation’ alcohol targets: findings from a national survey of GPs in England and Wales. Drug Alcohol Rev 17:249–258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Moyer A,
    2. Finney JW,
    3. Swearingen CE,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations. Addiction 97:279–292.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
    Models of care for treatment of adult drug misusers, http://www.nta.nhs.uk (accessed 3 Mar 2006).
  10. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2004) Choosing health: making healthy choices easier (Department of Health, London).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (525)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 525
April 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Hazardous drinking and the NHS: the costs of pessimism and the benefits of optimism
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Hazardous drinking and the NHS: the costs of pessimism and the benefits of optimism
Jim McCambridge, John Strang, Chris C Butler, Francis Keaney, Peter Anderson
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (525): 247-248.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Hazardous drinking and the NHS: the costs of pessimism and the benefits of optimism
Jim McCambridge, John Strang, Chris C Butler, Francis Keaney, Peter Anderson
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (525): 247-248.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Remote by default general practice: must we, should we, dare we?
  • Learning disability registers: known unknowns and unknown unknowns
  • Charging for NHS care and its impact on maternal health
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242