Analysis of the Greenwich Primary Care Trust

Analysis of the Greenwich primary coil give cargon TrustA wrap up describing and analysing the open wellness voice of an giving medication or initiative of your choice.Greenwich main(a) Care TrustIntroductionThe contribution to earth wellness made by an organisation or chest asshole be evaluated in coition to a number of features. These can be the range and scope of activities, the relevance for the local area, the effectiveness of the interventions, and their creation within the boundaries of evidence-establish practice. However, public wellness can also be calculated in congenator to how well the agency addresses key aspects of public wellness, including inequalities in wellness, what these constitute and their impact, and what is being done to address peculiar(prenominal) inequalities. In addition, cognize areas of public wellness need can be assessed in cost of progress made so far and amount of services provided to bear identified targets.This report explore s the public health contribution provided by Greenwich Primary Care Trust in their The annual Public Health idea 2007 2008. In this report, which introduces itself using the following frames of reference, providing the most up-to-date and local nurture thinking ahead as the population is due to grow and swap and making evidence-based recommendations to help prioritise local actions on the key health challenges for the borough (GPCT, 2008 p 3).DiscussionPublic health is generally counseled on fundamental health factors and issues which are important to the wider population, rather than to the individual, and impact upon community and loving structures and friendly life, non just on the lives of single race (Pomerleau and McKee, 2005 Orme et al, 2007). Pomerlau and McKee (2005) describe public health as the science and art of promoting health and pr flushting ailment through the organized efforts of society ( p 7). on that pointfore, it is not strike that the report fo cuses very(prenominal) much on language surrounding the appointment of key elements of public health which are subject to health procession within the locality, as being the particular proposition focus of the Trust. Pomerleau and McKee (2005) cite the capital of Canada Charter which was concerned with bring ining healthy public policy creating validatory environments strengthening community actions developing personal skills reorienting health services and demonstrating consignment to health promotion (p 9). These could be considered as signposts to understanding the value of a public health policy published by a specific agency.The report is a clear, detailed and comprehensive report clearly and in effect outlining key areas for health which are viewed as priorities. These include Improving psychogenic health (especially depression) Reducing cardiovascular disease (chiefly heart attacks and strokes) and reducing cancers (especially lung, bowel, prostate gland and breast) ( GPCT, 2008). The report provides statistics on morbidity and mortality for the borough which demonstrate that in relation to health and disability over the lifespan, these are the most significant health problems and the ones which are, it can be assumed, most urgently requiring attention.All of these foci are very much active health promotion, but when looked at in the linguistic context of what is cognise close to these kinds of diseases, all of the other elements of the Ottawa Charter cited preceding(prenominal) can be seen to affect these health issues. In line with health promotion principles, the report does focus on living longer, on prime(prenominal) of life, and on wellbeing issues, all of which are laudable in relation to public health because they relate both to the individual, and individual desires, and to the aspects of public health which will support and benefit the state (Iphofen, 2003). One of the drawbacks, however, of much(prenominal) a sweeping approach t o public health policy, however, is seen in this report as frequently as it is seen in the national, governmental health promotion campaigns, that of over-simplification, and, arguably unconscious, marginalisation of certain individuals. For example, the report, like government public health campaigns, does not take luxuriant notice of the individual factors which not only square off health but are not so easy to eradicate, such as the genetic factors influencing health and health behaviours (Hall, 1951).In relation to health promotion in the key health areas identified, the report does acknowledge the issues of life-style factors and socio-economic factors affecting health and disease, morbidity and mortality. The report states that both current and diachronic socio-economic factors, and the diversity of the local population, especially in relation to ethnicity, are considered significant in relation to the most important public health issues. thither is a wide range of literat ure which links social life, socio-economic condition and health, and which demonstrates that those who experience inequalities in health are those who are most disfavor in social and economic life (Bury and Gabe, 2004). It is also well known that health inequalities increase as the gap between advantage and disfavor widens, and that certain social or heathen groups are more presumable to experience disadvantage and the concomitant inequalities in health (Freund et al, 2003). GPCT (2008) acknowledge this, and focus on some important social groups as most vile disadvantage in the locality, including Black African and Irish populations. They argue that their policies agree been designed to demonstrate greater targeting of groups at greatest risk of deplorable health outcomes, and working with these groups to develop approaches that will really work, witha picky focus on the Black African and Irish populations in the borough who keep back poor outcomes across the major causes of early death and ill health (p 7). The report also addresses a range of ethnic issues and differences in health. However, it does not go far enough in describing and discussing policy responses to these issues, and to outlining constructive shipway to make real progress in these areas. Plenty of literature shows the ethnicity based inequalities in health and the spectrum of disadvantage related to ethnic diversity (Spector, 2002).These kinds of inequalities, which are often racially demarcated, are reflected in global communities, and are no new occurrence (Goeslin et al, 2004). Yet in that location are ongoing discussions about the ability to address such problems through public health initiatives, even with the inclusion of and best use of healthy public policy (Bury and Gabe, 2004 Pomerleau and McKee (2005). Issues which keep to reflect the cross-sectorial problems surrounding public health include homelessness and poverty (Ryan and Sarikoudis, 2003). The report does addres s the statistics around economic inequalities and poverty, showing that the borough has a higher attribute of good deal in lower-paid occupations, which significantly impacts on health. It also addresses some specific issues which emerge from the social health spectrum, including sexual health and young people (Bergmann and Scott, 2001). The report does focus on behavioural aspects of health, and illness, across specific social groups, including young peoples health. Some of the issues presented are similar to those establish nationally and internationally, including teenage pregnancy and teenage social isolation (Bergmann and Scott, 2001 Goesling and Firebaugh, 2004).However, there is very little focus on, for example, homelessness as a public health issue, one which affects m any of the key points which are being raised in the report. Shah and Cook (2001) for example, show that in one of the key indices of cardiovascular disease, that of hypertension, factors influencing this d isease the most are not socioeconomic status but very social isolation, and homelessness is one of the most severe forms of social isolation that exists in our society.The report cites a number of initiatives which have positively affected health and wellbeing within the borough, but it does not really present any radical or innovative initiatives to address what are ongoing, predictable and some repetitive and recurrent health and lifestyle issues which impact upon morbidity and mortality. There is a great need for different approaches to public health which build upon existing knowledge and incorporate, perhaps, more concrete information. For example, including service user enter in the collection, analysis and use of these kinds of data, and in the development of public health policy, should be a significant part of public health activities such as these, and should feature more strongly in these kinds of reports. Yet models of health and social care continue to exclude the pat ient voice, though in this circumstance it may be complicated by the ethnic and cultural diversity fo the borough (Gagliardi et al, 2008).ConclusionThe report discussed identifies the specific public health concerns of this London borough, and demonstrates not only what the most challenging issues are, but how the public health data of mortality and morbidity statistics intersect with some of the socio-economic and cultural statistics of the area. It identifies key areas for health promotion, but does not go far enough in addressing individual differences and the genetic factors which can complicate sweeping statements about causal and affecting factors in health and illness. It demonstrates that public health policies must be focused on local need, and that ongoing concerns are cardiovascular disease, mental illness and cancer. All of these are related to lifestyles, and therefore public health policy also relates to social policy. However, the links between these ii could be ma de much clearer.ReferencesBergman MM, and Scott J (2001) Young adolescents wellbeing and health-risk behaviours sexuality and socio-economic differences. ledger of Adolescence. 24, 2, 183-197Bury, M. and Gabe, J. (2004) The Sociology of Health and Illness A Reader. London Routledge.Carr, S.M. (2007) Leading transport in public health factors that inhibit and facilitate energizing the process. Primary Health Care Research and Development. 8 207-215.Freund, P., McGuire, M. Podhurst, L. (2003). Health, Illness and the Social consistency London.Gagliardi, A.R., Lemieux-Charles, L, Brown, A.D. et al (2008) Barriers to patient involvement in health service readiness and evaluation An exploratory study. Patient Education and Counseling 70 (2) 234-241.Goesling, B. and Firebaugh, G. (2004) The course of action in International Health Inequality Population and Development recap 30 (1) 131146.Hall, C.S. (1951) The genetics of behavior. In Stevens, S.S. (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 1st ed. deception Wiley and Sons, New York, USA 304-329.Harding, G. Taylor, K. (2002) Social Determinants of Health and Illness The Pharmaceutical ledger 269 485-487.Iphofen, R. (2003) Social and individual factors influencing public health. In Costello, J. Haggart, M. (2003). Public Health and nightclub Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.Orme J, Powell J, Taylor P and Grey M (2007) Public health for the 21st one C (second edition) (Chapter 1.) Milton Keynes Open University promote. Pomerleau J, Mckee M (eds) (2005) Issues in Public Health Milton Keynes Open University PressRyan, A. Sarikoudis, V. (2003). The Social Model of Health, Bridging the Gap between the health and homelessness sectors. Paper Presented at the Third National Homelessness Conference.Shah, S. and Cook, D.G. (2001) Inequalities in the treatment and control of hypertension age, social isolation and lifestyle are more important than economic circumstances. ledger of Hypertension. 19 (7) 1333-1340.S pector, R.E. (2002) Cultural Diversity in Health and Illness Journal of Transcultural Nursing 13 197.