Category Archives: London


31/03/2020 cllralanhall BlogPress Leave a comment

Personal Protective Equipment, known as PPE is in demand. There are reports that there is a shortage in hospitals and care facilities.

The Daily Mirror reports that hospitals listed as having shortages include Rotherham General Hospital, Bristol Children’s Hospital, Hillingdon Hospital in Uxbridge, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital and at St Thomas, Lewisham and two other unnamed hospitals in London.

“The correct PPE must be made available at every site that might require it. This is vital in order to protect our patients but also to protect the lives of the life-savers.”
DAUK’s Dr Natalie Ashburner in @DailyMirror @nashburner#COVID19 #testNHSstaff

— The Doctors’ Association UK (@TheDA_UK) March 19, 2020

The view from the NHS frontline is explained here:

Dr Samantha Batt-Rawden, an intensive care doctor and president of the Doctors’ Association UK, told Nick Ferrari that more doctors will die unless they get proper equipment.

In a further twist, healthcare workers who raise their concerns are facing being “gagged”. Helen O’Connor, GMB says in The Guardian “It is scandalous that hospital staff speaking out publicly face being sacked by ruthless NHS bosses

who do not want failings in their leadership to be exposed. Suppression of information is not just a matter of democracy, it is now a major public health issue.”

The Local Government Association has sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock MP. It says that there is an urgent need for Government to move faster in making PPE available for the adult social care sector. Sufficient supplies that are of acceptable quality are needed immediately. Councils and their provider partners also need concrete assurances about ongoing supplies for the days and weeks ahead.

Councillor Alan Hall has written to the Director of Public Health for Lewisham seeking reassurances for both hospital and social care staff locally. The full letter is below:

Catherine Mbema
Director of Public Health – Lewisham

Dear Catherine,

I have been informed that the lack of Personal Protective Equipment for cleaning staff at Lewisham Hospital is a real concern. Trade Unions say that there is a shortage of supply and that staff are very worried. It has been described as “a total nightmare”.

As the Public Health Lead across Lewisham, I would be very grateful if you could raise the shortage of supply with the NHS and the Hospital and reassure us that PPE will be available.

Whilst I write, personal carers have reported shortages and inadequacies nationally. Can an assurance that all Lewisham Council and NHS staff have been provided with effective PPE?

May I take this opportunity to thank you and your team for all the incredible work that has been placed upon you. I have always campaigned against Public Health cuts and the short sightedness of this is surely been borne out now.

Kind regards,


Cllr Alan Hall

In an article on the United Nation’s website, there is a chilling message:

“COVID-19 will not be the last dangerous microbe we see. The heroism, dedication and selflessness of medical staff allow the rest of us a degree of reassurance that we will overcome this virus.

We must give these health workers all the support they need to do their jobs, be safe and stay alive. We will need them when the next pandemic strikes.”

Please help: NHS Staff need adequate PPE now via @socialisthealth

— Alan Hall (@alan_ha11) April 1, 2020

Leave a comment
Posted on behalf of Carol Ackroyd and Jan Savage

A travelling photographic exhibition about NHS-owned private companies and what these mean for staff, patients and the NHS

Text by Jan Savage
Photographs by Marion Macalpine

You are warmly invited to the London launch

25th November 2019,  6pm to 8pm
with refreshments

Unison Centre, 130 Euston Rd, London NW1 2AY
Speakers to be confirmed

RSVP to; also for information about access, or any other queries

The exhibition is accompanied by a research-based booklet giving additional information.
The exhibition will be available for borrowing without charge, contact


Please circulate to friends and colleagues who night be interested to attend or borrow the exhibition.

Many thanks

Marion Macalpine

Hackney KONP

and for Jan Savage

Tower Hamlets KONP

invitation Subco final RSVP

Leave a comment

Very quietly the NHS in North West London has asked GPs and other prescribers to reduce prescribing of medicines and products (under the pretext of promoting ‘self-care’) that can be purchased without a prescription. (List)
The medicines patients are now advised to obtain over the counter include: vitamin D, skin creams, nasal sprays (like Beconase and saline solution for babies), lubricant eye drops, haemorrhoid creams, constipation laxatives (like Cosmocol), the commonly used painkillers, or dispersible aspirin to keep blood thin. One GP tweeted:
GP tweet
Such a money saving move hits hard vulnerable, elderly, school age children* or those on benefits, who are exempted  from the prescription charges but now have to buy these medicines, some of which are quite expensive. In order to save money, people try online shopping with a risk of buying cheap quality medicines.
*(the school age children are exempted if the product needs to be given at school as many schools will not administer medicines that do not have a dispensing label bearing the child’s name and the dose)
They do so seemingly to avoid bad rating by the Care Quality Commission inspection that would monitor the prescribing of these medicines.
Those in Harrow who need medical care not only suffer because of the cuts in medicine  but also because of a clinician decision whether a patient meets the evidence-based thresholds for the hospital treatment as defined in the Planned Procedure with a limited Threshold (PPwT) policy and which requires funding approval from the authority running a deficit budget.
There are thirty three  procedures covered under PPwT policy, including cataract surgery, grommets in children, hip replacement, correcting a deformity of the nasal septum and open MRI, for which individual funding request has to be made to the NHS Harrow Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) where  the  treatment falls under the ‘not normally funded’ category.
We understand Harrow CCG has declined many such requests.

Published with the permission of

Harrow Monitoring Group

Leave a comment

Grenfell laid raw the harsh realities for many living in London today. Many stories unfolded in the aftermath. There was the tale of two cities. The question of worth. The story of inexcusable inequality, and lives cut short by political failings. There was also the story of invisibility and fear. The undocumented migrants who died in the fire, forever anonymous, and the survivors who went into hiding, too scared to seek help.

I went to Grenfell with the charity Doctors of the world UK, a week after the fire. At Westway, the pop-up relief centre, we enquired who to liaise with and were told to speak to Sheena*, she appeared to be coordinating the medical response. We arranged a meeting, she explained what medical support was currently happening and we discussed the logistics of how our charity could help. At the end of the meeting, I asked what was her position. I had assumed she was from the government, or Public Health England, or at least from the council. She told us she was a filmmaker, lived locally, and had come to help the day after the fire. In the void of any eminence of leadership, she ended up as the unofficial coordinator of the medical response. I was dumbfounded.

There was no doubt that Sheena* and all the other volunteers at Westway, were doing incredible work to provide their best support for the Grenfell victims. But I couldn’t help ask myself the question; Had it been the neighbouring luxury flats in flames, would the medical relief effort be left to be coordinated by a filmmaker? It just seemed ludicrous.

In the weeks after the fire, the question I heard repeatedly, how did this happen in the richest borough in London? The question we should have been asking, prior to Grenfell, is why in Kensington borough, is there a 14-year difference in average life expectancy between the richest and the poor? Why, since 2010, did that century-long increase in life expectancy plateau?

Across the UK lives every day are silently cut short, from austerity, poor housing, deprivation and political decisions. According to DoH own data, in all of their 15 markers, health inequality among rich and poor has widened under the coalition and the Tories (after improving over the previous decade). Grenfell laid it raw. But the squeeze on public finances since 2010 is linked to nearly 120,000 excess deaths in England. Housing is core factor. 100,000s live in squalid, unsafe housing. Research by Shelter found that 48% of families in social housing who reported issues about unsafe conditions felt ignored or were refused help. The health implications of this we will be felt for decades.

It also became very clear within our first few hours at Westway, that in Grenfell tower there had been many asylum seekers and undocumented migrants residing. Many had since gone into hiding, too scared to seek help or medical care as they feared deportation. A volunteer told me there was a family that had escaped and were worried about their baby’s breathing but was too scared to seek help as they had a teenage son who was undocumented. We were told of an African woman in her 40s, who had fallen down the stairs on escaping the fire. Her partner and relatives were missing, She was experiencing dizziness and memory loss, but was too scared to go to A&E.

Unfortunately, their fears are not ill-founded. Migrants too scared to access care is not a new story. At the Doctors of the World clinic, regularly see pregnant women, cancer patients, victims of trafficking and abuse, too scared to access mainstream health services. This is due to laws brought in under Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment’ policy, which uses health care as an anti-immigration tool. The most recent, brought in 2 months before Grenfell, made it a mandatory legal requirement for healthcare staff to refer migrant patients to the home office if they access hospital care.

Thee were also concerns about visiting the GP surgeries. This is due to a controversial deal the home office has with NHS Digital (that was introduced without the knowledge of NHS staff) allowing the home office to access migrants data held by GP surgeries. The British Medical Association has vehemently opposed this, stating this breach of confidentiality undermines the sacred doctor-patient relationship and will deter the potentially vulnerable from seeking care. In January, after years of us campaigning, the Health Select committee enquired into this data sharing, determining “We are seriously concerned about the way NHS Digital has approached its duty to respect and promote confidentiality”, calling a halt and full review. Yet, the data sharing continues. It appears migrants do not have the right to medical confidentiality as the rest of us.

It was under these circumstances that Doctors of the World was forced to launch a safe and confidential pop-up clinic near Grenfell Tower, staffed by volunteers, to help survivors who were too afraid to get NHS care. We also had to write Jeremy Hunt, urging him to publicly state that survivors will not have their details shared with the Home Office. It was shameful this needed to be done, in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. These racial ‘hostile environment’ policies remain in place in the NHS, as highlighted by the Windrush scandal. Encouraging fear around accessing services is a dangerous policy, makes migrants vulnerable, marginalized and invisible.

Grenfell exposed the human cost of austerity. To give justice to the victims, we need to ask the difficult questions. Do the lives of those on our streets have equal worth? Have our politicians addressed the structural discrimination, classism, and racism that underlaid the tragedy?

Lessons learnt? I’ll let you answer that.

*name changed to maintain anonymity

Dr Sonia Adesara – NHS Doctor and activist

Tagged | 1 Comment

Under instruction from the Government, new health proposals across England have been drawn up called Sustainability and Transformation Plans. The plan for our area called “Our Healthier South East London” has now been published with the far greater detail requested by Lewisham Labour. We are worried about the severe funding cuts to the NHS which means the area faces a shortfall of nearly £1billion by 2020/21 if nothing changes.

This week the British Red Cross said the NHS faced a humanitarian crisis because the Tory government has systemically underfunded the NHS and cut over £4.6 Billion from social care in the last Parliament. To make South East London NHS STP a success it will need far more resources.

When the British Red Cross is warning of a humanitarian crisis in our health service and even the head of the NHS says there is not enough money, you have to take notice. So I do not have any faith in the government as it is projected that adult social care will be underfunded by some £242 million across the six boroughs – Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham – annually by 2020-2021. We must evaluate the plans carefully and rigorously on behalf of the people of Lewisham and the rest of South East London. It is clear a partnership approach across the whole of Greater London is the right approach. No-one will argue with that. Higher quality and more integrated social care, acute care, elective care with specialist and mental health services is a good thing. But we have to make sure that we get it!

The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign’s detailed report shows that they believe that the flawed financial modelling could ultimately threaten the future of the A&E again so you can be sure that we will crawl all over these plans wielding a fine toothcomb!

Alan Hall South East London

Lewisham Council passed my motion at the November 2016 Full Council.

COUNCIL MOTION – Proposed by Cllr Alan Hall

“The Council welcomes the publication of South East London’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). The Council also notes:

  • That there is a significant shortage of funds in the NHS and social care system
  • That respected think tank The Kings Fund has publicly expressed its numerous concerns over the STP process including:

“Tight deadlines have made it difficult to secure meaningful involvement in the plans from key stakeholders, including patients and the public, local authorities, clinicians and other frontline staff.”

“Despite the focus on local ownership, key elements of the process have been ‘top-down’.”

“National requirements and deadlines for the plans have changed over time, and guidance for STP leaders has sometimes been inconsistent and often arrived late.”

Therefore, the Council resolves to:

  • Request full publication of all associated documents and appendices
  • Request pre decision scrutiny on changes to NHS and social care provision locally
  • Require full public consultation on significant changes to any services
  • Call on HM Government to provide the resources to fund good quality services across South East London and re-affirms its commitment to an Accident and Emergency Department on the Lewisham Hospital site
Tagged | 1 Comment

I owe the NHS everything. I was born in St George’s Hospital in Tooting, as were my two daughters. I know how crucial our health service is to millions of Londoners on a daily basis. That’s why so many Londoners share my alarm at how the Tories have allowed the NHS to drift into crisis.

London's health

Despite the magnificent efforts of our doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, patients are suffering. Year on year, waiting lists get longer, it’s harder to see your GP, and waiting times in A&E and for ambulances are increasing. The NHS in London has fallen into a large financial deficit, threatening future cuts to services, while mental health services can’t cope with growing demand. The high cost of living and shortage of affordable homes means many hospitals are struggling to recruit and retain health workers. Underfunded social care services mean that many Londoners don’t receive early support to prevent avoidable hospital admissions. And, since NHS London was abolished by the Tories, London is without the city-wide strategic leadership on health it desperately needs.

Londoners need a Mayor who will stand up for the city’s health services. I’m determined to be that Mayor, using City Hall to argue for the resources the NHS needs, defending it against Tory attacks, and campaigning alongside patients, health-workers and all NHS supporters against any service closures or reconfigurations without proper consultation. I will fight for new powers to plan and coordinate services across the city, and use them, in collaboration with partners, to ensure that all Londoners have proper access to health services, with solutions tailored to the different needs of patients, communities and places. And I will do what I can to ensure that we move towards parity of esteem between physical and mental health and illness.

Leadership on health

As Mayor, I want to take the lead on health in the city. I will:

  • Be a champion for London’s NHS, protecting you, your friends and your family from the worst of the Tory failure on health in the capital, fighting for greater support for GP, A&E, London Ambulance Service and mental health services, and integration of services around the patient.
  • Campaign for extra powers to coordinate your health services across the city to provide proper strategic planning, and ensure greater access for Londoners to crucial services while providing democratic scrutiny of London-wide health services. 
  • Work with the NHS and the London Ambulance Service to help improve staff retention and recruitment.
  • Champion the need for additional funding to plug the social care gap, and the joining up of services to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. I will promote borough innovation and leadership on the ground to shift from reactive care to prevention, early intervention and care closer to home.
  • Launch a review of the provision of bus services to London’s hospitals.

Improving public health

I will be a Mayor who takes action to improve public health and tackle health inequalities in London. The current Mayor has neglected this crucial area, despite the spreading of diseases that we once thought were eradicated here such as TB and measles, worsening air pollution, and the alarming growth in childhood obesity. I won’t duck the difficult decisions necessary to improve the health of all Londoners. I will:

  • Get to grips with health inequality in London, leading from City Hall on reducing the spread of infectious diseases and promoting healthier lifestyles to harder-to-reach groups and communities, while improving the screening of Londoners to halt the spread of TB.
  • Develop a comprehensive public health strategy, focused around the promotion of active lifestyles, including sport, walking and cycling, to all Londoners, supporting those who want to shake off lifestyle risks such as drugs, smoking and alcohol, and tackling childhood obesity, including through challenging the spread of fast food shops in areas close to schools.
  • Tackle London’s dangerously polluted air.
  • Renew our focus on prevention of and screening for HIV, working with boroughs on collective commissioning and provision of prevention services and ensuring that effective information on HIV is reaching the right audiences.

Greater support for mental health

So many of us suffer from mental health problems at some point in our lives, yet there is still a stigma attached to mental illness, and within our health services, mental health still does not enjoy parity of esteem with physical health. I will:

  • Lead a campaign to break down the stigma of mental illness, and improve the availability of information and support, particularly amongst young men in London, and particular at-risk groups such as BAME men, and the LGBT+ community.
  • Promote and support Mental Health Awareness Week.
  • Coordinate efforts to reduce the number of people who take their own lives. I will expand best practice in crisis care support, and encourage better joint working between boroughs, health services, police, transport and voluntary sectors when dealing with people with mental health issues.

This comes from Sadiq’s manifesto.

Tagged | Leave a comment

What the London mayoral candidates have to say about housing policy:

CandidateZac GoldsmithSian BerrySadiq KhanCaroline PidgeonPeter Whittle
Total annual housebuilding target50,000 a year by 2020200,000 over a 4 year term50,000150,000 private units over 4 year term
Affordable housing target64,000 social and low cost rent, 400,000 low cost ownership• At least half of all new housing to be affordable
• Housing Associations to deliver 180,000 new homes over 10 years
50,000 council homes over 4 year term
Planning• Expert ‘flying planners’ team to support LA planning departments
• Standard viability assessments for affordable homes in developments
• Chief Architect for London
• London Plan to set aside more homes for Londoners on average salaries
• Reintroduce 50% affordable housing target for individual developments, require transparency on viability assessments
• Protect Zero Carbon definition
• Offer communities a Right to Regenerate – becoming partners in the planning
of opportunity areas and housing zones
• Develop planning rules to tackle ‘buy-to-leave’
• Improve planning and design to offer older Londoners more choice of suitable housing
• Greater transparency on viability assessments for affordable homes in developments
• Use powers more effectively to encourage home building, including benchmark that half of housing in new developments should be affordable for majority
of Londoners
Large development consents to be decided by local referendums
Development • Guarantee homes built on Mayoral land are only for Londoners – Homes built on TfL land reserved for those living in London for at least 3 years
• ‘London share’ retained in public sector land sold for development
• Company with a £0.5bln fund from council tax
to support smaller and community builders
• Free home insulation for homeowners
• Break up bigger development sites up into smaller plots
• Setting up ‘Homes for Londoners’ and building alliance of all with a stake in housebuilding
• Affordable homes to include social rent, new London Living Rent and part-buy- part-rent
• Attract institutional investors to finance homes for
long-term, secure rent
• City-hall owned developer to delivery 50,000 affordable homes
• Continue to levy Olympic Precept – leading to accessing finance of up to
£2 billion to build housing*
• Register of London’s brownfield sites
• Prioritise Londoners when developing on GLA land
Buyers • Londoners given first refusal on new-build homes built on TfL land
• ‘Mayor’s mortgage’ for
new-build property, 9 month agreement in principle window (instead of 6 months)
• Phase out shared ownership and replace with models such as mutual home ownership which will remain affordable in the longer term
• Campaign to reform leasehold law
• Londoners given ‘first dibs’ on all homes built on Mayoral land
• Seek to extend ‘first dibs’ to homes built on public land and to a proportion of homes built in all developments across
the Capital
Private Rented Sector• Three-year tenancies offered as standard
• Target high fees charged by estate agents to tenants
• Campaign for employers to offer ‘deposit loans’ for rental deposits to workers
• Create a ‘union for renters’
– which would be an advice and lobbying group
• Set up a register for landlords, which would allow tenants to rate and compare landlords
• Rogue landlords named and shamed in public database
• Set up not-for-profit lettings agency
• Increase renters’ rights on tenancy lengths and rents
• Promote landlord licensing and make the case for a London-wide scheme
• Promote 3-5 year tenancies
• All landlords to be registered
• Scrap agents’ lettings fees for tenants
Higher taxes for buy-to-let investors who leave property empty
Right to buy (Right to Buy comes under Central Government remit)Encouraging 2 for 1 replacement of properties sold• Lobby for end of Right to Buy
• Work with Councils and Housing Associations to mitigate impact of Housing and Planning Bill
Right-to-buy should come with a guarantee that a like- for-like replacement home for social rent will be built in local area• Scrap RtB for Social Tenants
• Introduce RtB for private tenants when landlords sell property
* Green beltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the Greenbelt
Estate regenerationRegeneration to replace run-down estates with
mansion blocks and terraces
– where a majority of local residents in favour
• No complete demolition unless absolutely necessary
• Regeneration to be led by residents who have right to independent ballot and support from Community Homes Unit
• Regeneration only with full resident support, demolition only where other options have been exhausted
• In-fill to boost housing numbers
HomelessnessExpand ‘No First Night Out’ which helps identify those at risk of homelessnessExpanding ‘No First Night Out’ scheme, with plans to end rough sleepingSet up ‘No Nights Sleeping Rough’ taskforce to oversee funding and implementation of Mayor’s priorities in this areaExpanding ‘No first night out’ schemeSet up a homelessness register at City Hall
Do you support:
Crossrail 2 YesYesYesYesNo
Bakerloo extension YesYesYesYes-
HS2 YesNoYesYes (but ensure impact on London is minimised)No
Heathrow extension
No (and close London City Airport)NoNoNo
EU membershipLeaveRemainRemainRemainLeave
Tagged | Leave a comment

First draft of a section of Labour’s Manifesto for London.

The challenge

Londoners deserve to live in a safe and healthy city. But for too many Londoners, crime still blights their communities and ill health still affects some sections of the population more than others.

While crime has been falling for over two decades, there are worrying signs of that certain crimes are on the rise. In particular, data shows that sexual violence and knife crime are increasing. Falling budgets are biting into the number of police on our city’s streets, and there is a very real risk that community policing may disappear altogether. Some communities are still lacking in confidence in the police, and there is still a worrying under-representation of BAME officers in the Met.

Victims of crime are still too often ignored or treated as an afterthought. Without confidence in our justice system, victims and witnesses won’t come forward and report crimes, and perpetrators will be free to walk the streets.

London is blighted by some dramatic health inequalities that shame a developed country. Across the city, there are wide variations in life expectancy, incidences of disease and in obesity. Too many Londoners are dying prematurely as a consequence of our polluted air – a scandal which cannot be allowed to continue.

Sadiq’s plan

Sadiq wants to build a London in which all its citizens feel safe and live long and healthy lives. He will transform the city’s police force so it looks more like the communities it serves, and in an era when the Met is facing devastating cuts, fight for more resources to prevent and tackle crime

Public health will be a high priority, with action to improve London’s air quality and challenge childhood obesity, alongside a focus on mental health.

  •  Put victims first: Sadiq wants to build a London in which all its citizens feel safe and live long and healthy lives. He will transform the city’s police force so it looks more like the communities it serves, and in an era when the Met is facing devastating cuts, fight for more resources to prevent and tackle crime
  •  Building community confidence in our police force: Sadiq will reinvigorate plans to create a more diverse Metropolitan Police force so that London’s police look and sound like the communities they are employed to serve. He will ensure the use of stop and search is intelligence led, and not targeted or overused in a way that undermines communitypolice relations.
  •  Tackling childhood obesity and ill health: Sadiq will use planning powers to restrict the growth of fast food outlets near schools and colleges, and promote physical activity and access to nature for all young people to help tackle childhood obesity, while working to tackle childhood hunger and malnutrition.
  • Cleaning our air: Sadiq will promote clean energy schemes, make our public transport network greener, make cycling safer and create more green spaces in order to reduce the damaging effects of filthy air on Londoners.
  • Taking public health seriously: In addition to prioritising cleaner air and tackling childhood obesity, Sadiq will work with health services and professionals across London to ensure a coordinated and proactive approach to prevention. He will work to promote parity of esteem between mental and physical health and ensure that all people, especially young people have access to mental health information, advice and support in the schools and communities.

Questions for consultation

  1. How can we deal with the major challenges facing community policing in a time of tough public finances?
  2. What new ideas and strategies might be employed to help better detect and fight crime?
  3. How can we build a Metropolitan Police force that is representative of London, and ensure that all of our communities have confidence in the force?
  4. What else should we be doing to improve the way victims and witnesses in London are treated?
  5. What are the key public health challenges for London and how should we address them?
  6. What can the Mayor do to support and improve London’s emergency services?
  7.  What other key challenges and priorities exist in this area?

The consultation closes at 6pm on 27 November 2015. Respond online

Tagged | Leave a comment

“Some people believe football is a matter of life and death,” Bill Shankly, Liverpool FC’s manager between 1959 and 1974, once said. “I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that”. Now imagine the newspaper headlines if at the end of the football season three of the biggest English football clubs – Manchester City, Everton and Liverpool – were relegated from the league. If football were really a matter of life and death, this is exactly what would happen.

We put together a public health league table which ranks the areas local to the 2014-15 Premier League football clubs from best to worst using key health indicators with a corresponding code: the percentage of smokers (P, played); weight – percentage of obesity and overweight (W, won); deaths – all cause mortality rates per 100.000 (D, drawn); life expectancy for males in years (L, lost); female life expectancy in years (F, for); alcohol-related hospital admissions per 100,000 (A, against); and the gap or difference in life expectancy for men between the most and least deprived areas of the local authority in years (GD, goal difference).

The final league points represent the sum of ranks for each outcome. For example, Chelsea’s league-winning score of 114 points comes from ranking second for P, first for W, D, L, F, and A and last for GD.

Public Health League

While Chelsea would still be winners in the public health league table, Crystal Palace, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs would join them in the top four, with West Ham in fifth place. As the bottom three in the table, Manchester City, Everton and Liverpool are all relegated.

The data we used came from PHE Outcomes Framework Data, the Office for National Statistics and the Public Health Observatory Wales. Premier League clubs were geo-referenced to the local area with which they are most associated, so Manchester United’s data, for example, is for Trafford Council, Chelsea FC is represented by data from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Swansea is represented by data from the local health board (although the Wales average had to be used for the alcohol variable). Liverpool and Everton have the same data as their grounds, Anfield and Goodison,are located in the same local authority.

Life expectancies

Apart from throwing up some unusual league places, the league table also further demonstrates the extent of the north-south divide in health in England: the top half of the table is dominated by southern clubs and the relegated trio are all from the north-west. To those working in public health, this will not be surprising as the cities of Liverpool and Manchester have some of the worst health outcomes in the country. The contrast between winners Chelsea and relegated Manchester City in terms of life expectancy is immense at seven years for men and six years for women.

The PHLT also demonstrates the local health inequalities that exist within our towns and cities. So while Manchester United place in the top four, their “noisy neighbours” Manchester City are relegated. Life expectancy for men and women on the red side of Greater Manchester is four years higher than for those on the blue side – only a couple of miles down the road. This is probably related to the stark differences on these two sides of the same city in terms of economic deprivation with, for example, child poverty rates of 34% for Manchester City Council compared to 14% in Trafford.

Manchester death league

Even within local authorities there are high inequalities in life chances with, for example, a 14-year gap in male life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas of Chelsea.

The north-south health divide, local health inequalities, and inequalities within local authorities are a serious public health concern – to the extent that they were the subject of Due North, the first Public Health England commissioned independent review in 2014. This report recommended a number of ways in which central and local government and the voluntary sector and the NHS could help reduce these health divides. The league table is another way of showing these divisions and raising awareness of the inequalities in “life and death” that exist in our country today.

This was first published on The Conversation

Tagged | 1 Comment

A Local Example of a National Crisis

This report shows the reality and the anatomy of a crisis that is slowly unfolding nationally in the delicate networks of care in the community. Lewisham is a Labour borough which increased its majority in the election. Like many other boroughs, health and social care services are under extreme strain. It is likely to be worse in other places, as the Labour administration has done its best to protect services where it can.

Lewisham is lucky to have two committed and effective people-centred organisations: the Save Lewisham Campaign and Healthwatch. We combined forces with other local groups, such as Carers Lewisham, to explore in detail both the best of community care and the reality of day to day care.

Together, we carried out an Appreciative Inquiry which defined excellent care by looking at the best care already provided in the borough as described by the stories of users, clinicians and managers. Then we did the same, but this time looking at the day to day reality of care. This is what is described here.

Lewisham enquiry

This report explores community health and social care in Lewisham. The report has two views on the issues. One is the patient and service user experience captured through an extensive community engagement programme by Healthwatch Lewisham. The other is the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign’s complementary analysis of the provision of community care services and the impact of financial constraints and reductions on services, service users and staff.

Community care is an often almost invisible but vital web of support for the most vulnerable in our society receiving care outside hospital and often in our own homes.  Service users may find it hard to comment on their quality of care and it can therefore be difficult to monitor the impact of any reduction or change to provision.  It is easy to see a hospital and get angry when it is threatened. It is harder to see threats to a jigsaw of services to an often vulnerable and sometimes silent population. Community care is a prerequisite for safe and effective care pathways between hospital and home. With pressures to reduce hospital provision, it is even more essential to examine current community provision.

This report follows the Appreciative Inquiry that demonstrated the excellent quality of care in Lewisham. This Inquiry gives voice to service users of community care in Lewisham who may find it more difficult to comment on these services rather than those of a hospital. The Inquiry showed that, from the points of view of users, clinicians and NHS managers, the following dimensions of care were key to a good service:

  • Time
  • Accessibility
  • Smooth Proactive Pathways
  • Empowerment of the Patient
  • Professionalism, Skill, Sensitivity, Listening
  • Sees the Person and the Social Situation not just the Condition

It was also clear that privatisation of NHS services was a concern for Lewisham residents

This report explores the daily reality of community health and social care in Lewisham. We look at both the quality and the provision of services.

We have tried to extend work across the protected equality characteristics and focus on communities that are poorly heard.

The report draws on many sources of evidence: Healthwatch has gathered over 100 stories from service users and carers. The Campaign has spoken to NHS staff to provide a different perspective. The report also draws on previous Healthwatch reports and desktop research. Data was gathered using quantitative and qualitative methods, speaking with individuals and groups. Some evidence has been difficult to gather, some is incomplete, and some will change. We acknowledge that more engagement is needed with service users, particularly those receiving services at home. We invite our partners to support us to do this.

Lewisham people

The Campaign emphasises that current community care provision in Lewisham needs to be seen against central government’s financial and organisational pressure on health, social care and voluntary agencies. The TSA process disrupted some effectively growing services and networks, as has the re-organisation of the Health and Social Care Act.

  • Although NHS funding is technically static, it is effectively falling by 5% annually nationally[1]. Inflation of products and services for the NHS outstrips the national inflation rate.
  • Government money to fund local authority services in Lewisham is projected to fall by 33% by 2017–18 from the level it was in 2013–14. That is from £208.1 million to £138.3 million.
  • Adult social care spending nationally has suffered cuts of 26%: £3.53 billion over the last four years. The service is now under extreme pressure and facing financial crisis. If the trajectory of cuts experienced to date continues over the period to 2019/20 spending must fall by 21% in cash terms or 33% in real terms.
  • There is a 5% decrease nationally in the number of people receiving social care services. As the National Audit Office concludes: “Need for care is rising while public spending is falling, and there is unmet need.”
  • To set a balanced budget for this year Lewisham Council has had to agree measures to save £39m. This comes on top of £93m savings already made since 2010.
    289 more staff could be threatened with redundancy out of 1,133 staff employed.

There is a commitment to improvement in community care by the SE London Strategy Programme, the Local Authority and the CCG.  Both the NHS and the local authority agree that sometimes savings, when combined with imaginative redesign, do not inevitably result in a deterioration of service. Ensuring that the public are fully engaged in the development of current and future redesigns of community care while using existing patient experience evidence such as this report is imperative to winning the best possible community care for Lewisham.

The Campaign highlights privatisation as an additional threat. Lewisham CCG has not been known for extensive privatisation, but, nationally, independent sector providers could provide 50% of NHS community services by 2020. The Campaign points out that there is no evidence that the market improves patient outcomes, while there is ample evidence that profits go out of the NHS, staff and skills are often reduced and fragmentation increased. Companies exit because profits are inadequate – and instability results.

A consistent picture emerges from the research and the stories.

  • Staff are increasingly stretched and are working harder and longer hours. Despite these challenges, in the majority of cases users in both social and health community care still receive a quality service delivered by caring and attentive staff who listen and involve them in decisions about their care. 
  • Services overall, however, seem to be reducing in most sectors. Lack of access, resulting from a reduction in community care provision, poor co-ordination of services and continuity of care, confusion about where to access services and access information are themes arising in the second stage of this inquiry.
  • These can cause some clinicians to focus on the immediate problem rather than the bigger picture of the patient and the wider determinants of their health.
  • On occasion, as in findings on hospital discharge, services can be unsafe.


Service users continue to tell us that time is vital to the quality of care they receive. Once patients access a particular service the majority feel that they are given enough time. However, this appears not to be the case in some areas of social care, and for patients with complex needs in general practice.


Access has been the number one issue raised during this inquiry, particularly access to GPs, chiropodists, practice nurses (in some areas) and diabetes support nurses, CAMHS and mental health services. It is a direct result of fewer, stretched staff. In services provided by the NHS, this is often because of recruitment problems.

Poor user access to information was a related issue.

Smooth Proactive Pathways.

The report finds that many patients have experienced difficulties in the coordination of different services, often when moving between services or being discharged from one service to another. It is hard to link services if they have different management structures and reduced administrative support with too few professionals to meet the demand.

The inquiry found that Continuity of Care, a related theme issue, is also compromised by lack of access to services.

Empowerment of the Patient

Most users told us that they feel supported in sharing decisions, as much as they want to, with professionals. However, there is always room for improvement, particularly when looking at carer involvement and working with patients with learning difficulties.

Professionalism, Skill, Sensitivity, Listening.

Once users get to see a professional for a service, almost all said that they are treated well, with respect, care and commitment. This, again, is a tribute to the professionals working under pressure and still delivering high quality care.

Sees the Person and the Social Situation not just the Condition

Users reported that this aspect of good practice is not always addressed. It is central to some disciplines, such as CAMHS, where understanding the wider determinants of mental health is core. However, in other disciplines, such as district nursing, it seems that pressure encourages an almost exclusive focus on the immediate.  On occasion, it appears that this can become a critical problem.

The reason for the squeeze on staff and services is clear – it is austerity.

This report supports the visions created through the Appreciative Inquiry. Service users, community leaders, health and social care staff have told us community care needs:

  • Adequate investments in community care services to ensure that service users receive the highest quality of care
  • Well trained and well paid staff, well supported, who have the time to offer patient-centred services with a focus on continuity of care
  • A holistic approach, taking into account many aspects of the patient’s life and health
  • Connectedness and cooperation between services, the voluntary sector and the community
  • Patients to be supported to make as many decisions about their care as they want
  • Patients to have all the necessary information made available to them to support them and their wellbeing, as well as enabling them to make positive choices about their health
  • Patients to be able to access services in a timely manner with choice made available wherever possible
  • Healthcare as a whole – we reject suggestions that boosting community healthcare opens the door to reductions in hospital care
  • Smooth integrated pathways: this cannot be provided through privatisation and fragmentation
  • New media to be used where appropriate.

The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign challenges two assumptions behind current NHS thinking. It is highly unlikely that improving community care services will enable cash-releasing cuts in hospital services. There is virtually no evidence for this. Indeed, the number of hospital beds probably needs to increase rather than contract: current bed occupancy is well over the safe threshold of 85-90%. England has fewer beds than all but one OECD country per head of population.

The Campaign calls for:

  • Increased government funding for community health and care services
  • An end to austerity for public services
  • A dissemination of this report to community groups and Lewisham residents
  • Public support for rapid and permanent support for existing staff, increasing numbers and engagement

This report has been compiled by Healthwatch Lewisham and the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign with the help of 100s of Lewisham residents and Lewisham community groups, with Carers Lewisham prominent. Some of the views are the Campaign’s alone. These are made clear.

[1] 4% is the figure usually quoted. There is an annual 1% tariff ‘deflation’ which, added together, makes a 5% average ‘cost pressure’ annually for most trusts

Full 70 page report

















Tagged , | Leave a comment

London has some significant health and care challenges and inequalities. The healthcare system continues to be poor at preventing ill-health and in diagnosing illness early, and too much care is provided in hospitals instead of in the community.

London has the highest average income but it is also the most polarised in the country, with people in the top 10% of households earning around five and a half times more than those in the bottom 10%. On the whole, people in the more deprived boroughs in London have poorer health. In many London boroughs poverty and affluence and the associated health inequalities exist side by side. In Tower Hamlets women have life expectancy of 54.1 years compared to 72.1 years for women in wealthier Richmond-upon-Thames, a gap of 18 years.

There is growing pressure on health and social care systems. The number of people with multiple long-term conditions is set to grow to 2.9 million by 2018 and the number of older people likely to require care is predicted to rise by over 60 per cent by 2030.

More than 1.5 million Londoners live with mental illness which ranges from anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder to schizophrenia. Mental ill health is more common in London than in other parts of the country with 18% of people living in the capital having a common mental health problem, compared to 16% nationally. London’s leading causes of premature death are from predominantly treatable conditions such as cardiovascular disease, cancers and respiratory disease. Around 80% of these deaths are attributable to lifestyle factors such as excess alcohol, smoking, lack of physical activity and poor diet. Obesity is a bigger problem in outer London, although inner London has higher rates of early death from heart disease and cancer.

Across London there is a serious shortage of home and community-based care available for patients and carers. Around a quarter of patients who do not need specialist care are admitted to hospital as a result of this, and up to 60% of patients are kept in hospital beyond five days when their needs could be met in more appropriate and cheaper community settings. State-funded social care spending decreased by £1.5 billion between 2006 and 2013 (2012/13 prices). This included a 39% reduction in the use of services for older people, 48% reduction in the use of services for adults with mental health needs and 33% reduction in the use of services by people with physical disabilities.

Hospital admissions in non-urgent cases could be avoided with better proactive management of patients’ condition in their own home or within a community facility. There is an emerging social enterprise movement of approximately 1000 healthcare co-ops working within the NHS with a combined turnover of £600m. Social enterprises, housing associations and the third sector have developed a range of services to support the marginalised and disadvantaged communities in London in part funded by personalised budgets. We need much more of this approach in London, as it puts more choice in the hands of patients and successfully prevent conditions getting so bad that admission to hospital is required.

Here’s how we could promote more patient power through the use of social enterprise in London’s healthcare system:

  • make third sector, social enterprises, co-operatives and mutals preferred providers in commissioning healthcare, and take action when there is a bias against using these providers;
  • give patients and staff more control over hospitals by changing foundation trusts into co-operatives;
  • increase the use of personalised budgets and allow budget holders to pool funding to increase their purchasing power to help shape the market and develop more choice;
  • charge private-sector NHS providers 5% of gross profit they make from these services to help develop patient-led healthcare social enterprises with a particular focus on the most socially excluded communities.

We need a co-operative healthcare agenda for London to give patients a bigger say over the care they receive, reduce health inequalities, and move towards services that prevent health conditions becoming health crises.

First published by the Co-operative Party


The current smog – whilst unnerving for those living through it – is a welcome opportunity to focus on an under-reported scandal of modern British public health. We are being killed, silently and invisibly in the thousands, by the air we breathe. And few in Public Health, let alone the media, is noticing. Why?

The mainstream narrative on public health this century revolves around behaviour and chronic disease. The major health challenges were tackled by the Victorians and the social reforms of the 20th Century. First sewerage and water, through factory acts and public housing, then lately the clean air act in the 1950s meant the big industrial killers and (with vaccines and antibiotics) major infectious diseases were solved. In their place we have a new set of evils – diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol and sex, particularly amongst the poor.

Public Health England has a nice list in its priorities: “We know the most significant factors that lead to poor health: smoking; high blood pressure; obesity; poor diet; lack of exercise; and excessive alcohol consumption.”

This shift fit with the New Right and then New Labour focus on individual responsibility and (at best) a behaviour-regulating Government. Regulation gave way to nudge. For the right, moralistic victim-blaming whilst railing at a state reduced to nannying personal choices. For the left, a doomed mission to explain the complex social determinants (and commercial pressures) driving behaviour itself.

So it is not surprising perhaps that air pollution has gone out of fashion since the closure of heavy industry and this shift in political status quo. Until, that is, you learn (as I did today) that air pollution is responsible for 29,000 premature deaths, half a year off life expectancy and is the second biggest cause of premature death after smoking but before obesity or alcohol. In the light of these figures, the air-brushing of pollution from the priorities of public health policy is nothing short of surreal.

Perhaps our blindness to air pollution is that, apart from this week, it is usually invisible. Perhaps, it does not fit into our understanding of post-industrial Britain where dirty industry is off-shored to the Developing world. Perhaps it is a victim of Government departmental silos, but Defra lacks the budget or (potential) clout of the Department of Health. Certainly the Treasury has been keen to dilute the Cameron Greenwash as being anti-business. But I can’t remember Labour being much louder about it – with the notable exception of Livingstone’s pioneering policies.

Is there an opportunity here for Labour to mount a populist pro-green, pro-health attack on air pollution? Nothing apparently so far from our Public Health team, admittedly busy in pursuit of mental health, sugary drinks and plain cigarette packaging this week. Miliband made a tentative foray back into the green agenda during the floods, so following up with an attack on the Government (and Johnson’s) lamentable record would seem to be an open goal in the run up to local and Euro elections. As the UK breaches EU pollution limits, killing thousands more, what better example of the potential for progressive public health policy in Europe and in local government to bring tangible impact on life and death?

Tagged | 2 Comments
%d bloggers like this: