Supporting the case for “progressive universalism” in health visiting: Scottish mothers and health visitors’ perspectives on targeting and rationing health visiting services, with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model.

Aims. To explore parents and professionals’ experience of family assessment in health visiting (public health nursing), with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model (LCCM). Background. Health visitors (HVs) currently assess families as requiring core, additional or intensive support, and offer support at a corresponding level. The majority of families are assessed as core and receive no pro-active support beyond the early days. Previous assessment tools, consisting of checklists, have been criticised as being ineffective in identifying a range of health needs and unacceptable to parents and HVs. The LCCM model was developed and introduced in the study area to promote a partnership approach with parents and assess strengths as well as difficulties in parents’ capacity to care for their child. Methods. Qualitative methods were used. Ten mothers and twelve HVs took part in individual semi-structured interviews. Results. Most mothers were aware of the assessment process but some felt that they were not involved in the decision making process. Explaining the assessment process to parents is problematic and not all HVs do so. The assessment process was stressful for some mothers. HVs find the model useful for structuring and documenting the assessment process. Many believe that most families benefit from some support, using public health approaches. Families are often assessed as core because there are insufficient resources to support all those who meet the criteria of the additional category, and managers assess caseloads in terms of families with child protection concerns. Conclusions. The study findings support the concept of “progressive universalism” which provides a continuum of intensity of support to families, depending on need. Mothers would like better partnership working with HVs. Relevance to clinical practice. The study endorses proposed policy changes to re-establish the public health role of HVs and to lower the threshold for families to qualify for support.

The total margin of exposure of ethanol and acetaldehyde for heavy drinkers consuming cider or vodka

Heavy drinkers in Scotland may consume 1600 g ethanol per week. Due to its low price, cider may be preferred over other beverages. Anecdotal evidence has linked cider to specific health hazards beyond other alcoholic beverages. To examine this hypothesis, nine apple and pear cider samples were chemically analysed for constituents and contaminants. None of the products exceeded regulatory or toxicological thresholds, but the regular occurrence of acetaldehyde in cider was detected. To provide a quantitative risk assessment, two collectives of exclusive drinkers of cider and vodka were compared and the intake of acetaldehyde was estimated using probabilistic MonteeCarlo type analysis. The cider consumers were found to ingest more than 200-times the amount of acetaldehyde consumed by vodka consumers. The margins of exposure (MOE) of acetaldehyde were 224 for the cider and over 220,000 for vodka consumers. However, if the effects of ethanol were considered in a cumulative assessment of the combined MOE, the effect of acetaldehyde was minor and the combined MOE for both groups was 0.3. We suggest that alcohol policy priority should be given on reducing ethanol intake by measures such as minimum pricing, rather than to focus on acetaldehyde.