LA SITE 1 | LA SITE 2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Barriers | Facilitators | Barriers | Facilitators |
Resource constraints leading to a decision to focus on over-riding priorities and limited local police resources (×3: PC; PH; CM). | Comprehensive Health Needs Assessment which identified unmet needs in defined sub-populations (×3: CM; PH; DC). | Large metropolitan area leading to problems planning ‘joined up’ services in providing treatment options and pathways (x2: CT; PH). | Successful application for extra funds specifically for tackling alcohol fuelled violence and disorder (×4: PH; LT; PC; DC) |
Not wanting to discourage commerce (×2 PH; LT). | Alcohol commissioning co-located with Public Health within organisational structure (×2: CM; PH). | No comprehensive area alcohol needs assessment (×2: PH; DC). | Access to specialist legal expertise making legal team less risk averse about implementing novel policy measures likely to be challenged by the industry (×3: PH; LT; PC) |
Information sharing difficulties/IT compatibility issues (×4: CM; PH; IT; TP). | Informal close working: police & licensees (×2: PC; LT). | Under-provision and patchwork nature of alcohol specialist treatment services (×3: CL; CM; DC). | Pro-active police around licensing, strongly motivated to tackle poor public image of the city in relation to drinking (×3: PC; LT; DC) |
Necessity of tackling high admissions – restricting capacity for a wider approach (×3 PH; CM). | Enlightened CCG willing to fund Hospital ABIs (×4: CM; CT; PH; DC) | Little apparent engagement from CCGs (×2: CT; TP). | Capacity to diversify large and vibrant night-time economy (×3: LT; PC; TP). |