Drink-related A&E cases rise sharply (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Drink-related A&E cases rise sharply
10:00am Friday 3rd February 2012 in News By Emma Dunn
An ambulance arrives at GWH
THE number of people being admitted to Great Western Hospital due to alcohol consumption has more than doubled in under a decade.
Figures released by the South West Public Health Observatory show that 3,431 individuals in Swindon were admitted to hospital between 2009 and 2010 for alcohol-attributable admissions, an increase of 117 per cent since the 2002 to 2003 figures.
The 3,431 alcohol-attributable hospital admissions were made up of 814 that were wholly due to alcohol and 2,617 that were partially due to alcohol.
Ian Kendall, consultant in emergency medicine at GWH said: “Excessive drinking is a serious health issue for individuals and for hospitals like ours, not only because of the short-term effects of binge drinking but also for older people who have been drinking for many years, as it gradually takes its toll on their health.
“The vast majority of people admitted to the GWH as a result of alcohol come to us through the emergency department, which of course places extra demand on our services, and we have seen that over the past 10 years there has been a big increase in the number of people who need to be admitted to hospital because of alcohol.
“To provide support to these patients, the trust has two alcohol liaison nurses who operate from the emergency department offering a hospital-wide, nurse led service to all wards and departments.
“Swindon has a good support network with several alcoholics anonymous groups and the Swindon Alcohol and Drugs Support Group. Our liaison nurses have good working links with these support services in Swindon and also in Wiltshire.”
There are more than a million hospital admissions due to alcohol each year in England.
The report showed the overall rate of hospital admissions for Swindon that were wholly due to alcohol in 2009/10 was 402 per 100,000 population, which is statistically significantly lower than the South West rate.
Meanwhile, the overall rate of hospital admissions that were partially due to alcohol for 2009/10 was 1,568 per 100,000 population, which is not statistically significantly different from the South West rate.
People living in the most deprived areas were almost four times more likely to be admitted to hospital for conditions that were wholly due to alcohol than those living in the least deprived areas.
One recovering alcoholic is not surprised by the increase in admissions.
Phil Spalding, 53, of Rodbourne, has been sober for the past six years after a spell in Gloucester House rehab centre in Highworth.
He said: “I came from a background where drinking was prevalent in my social class and in my family.
“I don’t think it’s a surprise when you see the problems there are around, be it drinking at home or drinking in pubs.
“The 24-hour drinking culture and being able to buy cheap alcohol from the supermarket is with us.
“It’s OK us waving our arms in the air and trying to cure it, but where are the preventative measures in the first place?”
Comments(29)
Mystery Mike
says...
10:11am Fri 3 Feb 12
dglaholm wrote:I'll drink to that!
They should get a bill for the treatment.
I was in A&E some time ago in a cubicle and there was a drunken girl next to me.Very abusive and loud and insulting those who were trying to help.Perhaps the towns MP's will champion the hospital being able to charge.
dmw1984
says...
10:38am Fri 3 Feb 12
dglaholm wrote:If you start charging people who've had to much to drink, do you then start charging smokers for their treatment? then you move to the obese? where next cancer patients? You've got to draw the line somewhere.
They should get a bill for the treatment. I was in A&E some time ago in a cubicle and there was a drunken girl next to me.Very abusive and loud and insulting those who were trying to help.Perhaps the towns MP's will champion the hospital being able to charge.
Perhaps if doctors didn't treat those people who were being verbally or physically abusive maybe they'd think twice.
ROBFM_is_my_father
says...
10:42am Fri 3 Feb 12
dmw1984
says...
11:00am Fri 3 Feb 12
On another note why are pubs/nightclubs serving drunk people I thought that was illegal?
Robfm
says...
11:21am Fri 3 Feb 12
They believe the way the statistics are compiled gives a very distorted picture. There being far less admissions directly due to alcohol than the figures indicate.
'For example, if a patient is admitted for a stroke after high blood pressure, a fraction of this case is classified as alcohol-related.
This is because high blood pressure is considered an alcohol-related condition. This means that recent figures claiming that hospitals have seen millions of admissions due to alcohol are distorted.'
http://www.morningad
vertiser.co.uk/Gener
al-News/Government-t
o-revise-hospital-ad
mission-stats
This of course would directly affect the stats for smoking also, where merely being a smoker is recorded against your admission criteria.
itsamess
says...
11:53am Fri 3 Feb 12
The major cause of strokes being clots. Alcohol thins the blood. Stoke rates are higher in the elderly and many illnesses can increase the risks of strokes.
As does lifestyle.
Pubs are on the decline and drinking is up as is drunk related admissions or treatment-be it via an assault-falls and drunken driving.
Hmmmf
says...
11:56am Fri 3 Feb 12
Adver wrote:
The report showed the overall rate of hospital admissions for Swindon that were wholly due to alcohol in 2009/10 was 402 per 100,000 population, which is statistically significantly lower than the South West rate.
But of course that is good news, and therefore would not make a good headline, would it?
towney
says...
12:00pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Robfm wrote:hahahahaha, is this a joke????
Interesting timing re these figures, because the Government is changing the methodology with regard to alcohol related admissions.
They believe the way the statistics are compiled gives a very distorted picture. There being far less admissions directly due to alcohol than the figures indicate.
'For example, if a patient is admitted for a stroke after high blood pressure, a fraction of this case is classified as alcohol-related.
This is because high blood pressure is considered an alcohol-related condition. This means that recent figures claiming that hospitals have seen millions of admissions due to alcohol are distorted.'
http://www.morningad
vertiser.co.uk/Gener
al-News/Government-t
o-revise-hospital-ad
mission-stats
This of course would directly affect the stats for smoking also, where merely being a smoker is recorded against your admission criteria.
I have never heard such a load of s***e.
You clearly never passed with flying colours at med school!
I 2 Could B
says...
12:06pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Why do people do it? Because they know they'll be scraped up, fixed up and set about their merry way to do it all over again next weeked at NO COST to them.
It's funny, people are increasingly concerned about finances and yet they're apparently perfectly happy that billions are spent patching up drunk people every year.
Two things would cut this problem virtually overnight:
1. A fixed charge of £50 for treatment dispensed to anyone brought into A&E that is more than 5 times the legal drink-drive limit. That's a lot of leeway. Anyone past that level must knowingly accept that what then may happen to them could well cost them £50.
2. Automatic six month prison sentence for ANYONE who physically assaults an NHS employee whilst on hospital property. No ifs, no buts, no 'I was drunk' (er, that's kind of the problem). All NHS hospitals have plenty of CCTV, the cases would all be easily proven.
Robfm
says...
1:01pm Fri 3 Feb 12
http://www.straights
tatistics.org/articl
e/alcohol-related-ho
spital-admissions-se
t-tumble
ManWithCar
says...
1:29pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Hmmmf
says...
3:32pm Fri 3 Feb 12
ManWithCar wrote:
OK Rob - YOU go to A&E and see how many drunks are admitted on a Friday and Saturday night, either needing stitches because they have been in a fight, or their stomachs pumped due to EXCESS ALCOHOL.
William Shakespeare 1564-1616 wrote:
I would there were no age between sixteen and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting.
The numbers attending A&E are not exactly a surprise, ManWithCar, the emergency services have been 'geared up' for weekends since emergency services were established. And there were apparently 206,798 road casualties in 2010, so you might find a few PeopleWithCars in there on a Friday and Saturday night too.
Amberflame
says...
4:54pm Fri 3 Feb 12
itsamess
says...
4:55pm Fri 3 Feb 12
An amazingly good post.
Bob
Figures say it all--facts are even simpler--drinking does strange things to people--people get hurt. People die.
Hmmmf
says...
5:19pm Fri 3 Feb 12
.
Personally I think the simplest answer would be to enforce all the existing laws which were of course created to deal with precisely these problems. But which are, these days, completely ignored by a hard-pressed police force and a lacklustre and gutless judiciary.
I 2 Could B
says...
6:30pm Fri 3 Feb 12
I feel it's acceptable to charge those who deliberately get drunk to 5 x the legal driving limit a token fee/penalty of £50 for their treatment. After all, most of them will, by definition, have already broken several public order offences pertaining to Drunk & Disorderly contrary to section 91 CJA 1967 and so should be fined in any case.
The very big difference between going out tonight and deliberately getting so paralytic you injure yourself or others and simply smoking all your life is that it's a specific choice to knowingly get into a state where you have no idea what you're doing or what's happening to you. It's not an accident, it's not bad luck and it's not a health problem that builds over decades.
Unless the NHS moves with the times it will inevitably end up having to be fully privatised. Many don't appear to want that, so why not support measures that may prevent it happening?
Robfm
says...
6:31pm Fri 3 Feb 12
If anyone of you presented at A&E for say a broken leg, (perhaps football injury). You will be asked questions as to your smoking, eating and alcohol intake. These end up being recorded in the statistics and become 'related' causes.
The whole point about HMG's review, the second link I posted has a link to that review.
They are stating these 'vague' associations are dramatically over inflating the numbers.
As for A&E having had to attend there and be in a ward directly above, I am fully aware it of course is a problem. HMG are simply trying to establish the reality of the problem.
Surely that is the wise thing to do with finite resources.
Hmmmf
says...
11:19pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Knobfm
says...
1:57am Sat 4 Feb 12
I 2 Could B
says...
8:36am Sat 4 Feb 12
1, it's a punitive measure which would attract a righteous outcry (it's legal to drink, so why charge drinkers extra when it's illegal to take illicit drugs but druggies get free treatment and even free needles and syringes...etc)
Yep, **** right it's a punative measure. Drinking is legal, being drunk and disorderly is not. The vast majority of those who end up having stomachs pumped in A&E at 2am will have been drunk and disorderely beforehand. They will have broken numerous laws already.
There are other laws in place relating to illegal drugs, the two things are not related or relevant. Indeed, as you say one is legal, one is illegal - rather a big difference. Plus, there really aren't actually very much 'druggies' fighting NHS staff on A&E on Saturday nights. It's a separate issue.
Also, most new legislation/policy meets with righteous indignation and cries of, 'unfair', but it doesn't stop it happening.
2, let's be fair - if somebody's already in a hospital being attended to by qualified medical staff, I hardly think a finger pin-**** to ascertain their level of intoxication is a big deal. The police are legally entitled to breath/blood test anyone they suspect of being over the limit (about 99.5% of which they get wrong, meaning the citizens tested have done nothing wrong), so I don't see why those suspected of being very drunk when arriving at hospital should not be similarly tested.
If such a sensible new policy were to annoy Shami Chakrabarti, all the better.
Robfm
says...
8:42am Sat 4 Feb 12
I 2 Could B
says...
10:42am Sat 4 Feb 12
Robfm wrote:The thread you're referring to is about legal highs - so, in fact, the polar opposite of what you've just tried to imply.
But she would probably agree with 'your' right to take illegal substances, at least that is the impression one gets reading your posts elsewhere.
Whether you like it or not, people will ingest whatever they choose, be that fatty food, cigarette smoke, alcohol, illegal highs, legal highs or even one of your Sunday roasts.
You cannot stop them, you will never stop them. So, given that sensible and intelligent adults KNOW that to be the case, we have to look to formulating policies and actions for AFTER those substances have been ingested.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone going out to get blind drunk at the weekend. It's what happens once they are blind drunk, and the consequences of it, that are of concern. As I say, introduce a £50 charge as described above and after a while the entire binge drinking culture in the UK would shift and the NHS would be spending far less time and resources than it currently has to.
Robfm
says...
11:56am Sat 4 Feb 12
I 2 Could B
says...
12:10pm Sat 4 Feb 12
there is simply no evidence that 'cost' is a diverting factor
What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say! There is limitless evidence all around us. It's called: taxation.
Or do you not believe that the massive amounts of tax on the beer sold in your pub means you sell less of it?
MrAngry
says...
3:26pm Sat 4 Feb 12
dglaholm wrote:I'm confused. On another thread you promote a project that gives drugs to addicts to stop them commiting drug related crime.
They should get a bill for the treatment.
I was in A&E some time ago in a cubicle and there was a drunken girl next to me.Very abusive and loud and insulting those who were trying to help.Perhaps the towns MP's will champion the hospital being able to charge.
Am I right in thinking that you believe that someone who abuses a legal drug such as alcohol should pay for hospital treatment, but someone who abuses an illegal drug and steals to pay for it should be given help and free illegal drugs?
I Too
says...
5:58pm Sat 4 Feb 12
He doesn't like dogs either
Robfm
says...
7:02pm Sat 4 Feb 12
MrAngry
says...
5:06pm Sun 5 Feb 12
Amberflame wrote:Amberflame ..... unfortunately I don't think that they would be ashamed of their behaviour. Binge drinking is seen as the norm and a trip to A&E merely results in a good story to tell their mates.
I don't think making them pay will work. Perhaps they should be filmed while in there drunken state and when they are visited by the Alcohol Liasion Nurse they can be shown their appauling behaviour,told the cost to the NHS to treat these idiots and shamed into not coming back again!! This is a topic that makes me quiet angry.
dglaholm says...
10:05am Fri 3 Feb 12
I was in A&E some time ago in a cubicle and there was a drunken girl next to me.Very abusive and loud and insulting those who were trying to help.Perhaps the towns MP's will champion the hospital being able to charge.