We're living longer,healthier lives

PEOPLE in Warrington are living longer and healthier lives, according to a new report.
The annual public health reporter, by director of public health Dr Rita Robertson, “The changing face of public health”, examines the health of local people against a number of key local and national targets.
Major health indicators such as obesity, sexual health screening, teenage pregnancy and childhood immunisation, show that Warrington is currently outperforming the North West and England averages.
Around 95 per cent of girls aged 12 to 13 were vaccinated against HPV (cervical cancer) compared to an average of 80 per cent nationally, while the current cancer mortality rate stands at 112.82 per 100,000 population compared with an average of 125.28 in the North West.
The report features an analysis of NHS ‘prevention spend’ against tackling ill health and reducing health inequalities. Despite Warrington being one of the lowest funded Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in the North West, the Trust continues to invest in public health interventions at a level which closely matches the rest of the region.
Dr Robertson said: “Health in Warrington is really improving, people are living longer and adopting healthier lifestyles. We’re also making real progress into complex and long-standing health issues such as heart disease.
“Our main challenge is to ensure that this continues, particularly within the communities that experience the most inequalities in health.”
There are concerns that Warrington residents’ on average have a lower survival rate for cancer, and therefore the report recommends a fuller analysis of cancer management in Warrington, to include early detection and prevention activities.
A copy of the report can be obtained from 01925 843600

Sha on 12th December 2010 10:18 pm 10:18 pm

Emanon, my criticism of this article was that it gives an overly optimistic impression of health in Warrington, which does not reflect the true picture. An overly optimistic impression that you however seem to now have. From where in this article did you get the ‘understanding’ that health is improving in ALL areas of Warrington? Perhaps from the statement, “Health in Warrington is really improving, people are living longer …..” firstly note, people in general are living longer, not just in Warrington. Secondly, though this statement refers to Warrington it does not give indicators specific to different areas of the town. In a recent critical report, which was far more informative, it was noted that people in deprived areas in Warrington live on average 8-10 years less than those in more affluent areas and there is nothing in this report to indicate that there has been any improvements to lessen this gap of inequality.

The positive aspects of this report are given as “Major health indicators such as obesity, sexual health screening, teenage pregnancy and childhood immunisation, show that Warrington is currently outperforming the North West and England averages.” BUT the negative aspects are……. “There are concerns that Warrington residents’ on average have a lower survival rate for cancer,….. ”

ALSO….” We’re also making real progress into complex and long-standing health issues such as heart disease”. As Warrington has one of the highest rates for Cardio-vascular disease not just in Britain but in the whole of the world, it might have been expected that a detailed update on this would have been given. If any REAL progress had been made in this field I’m sure they would have been shouting it from the rooftops rather than just slipping it unobtrusively into this article.

If you look at the actual facts it’s not exactly the rosy picture they’ve tried to present is it? In answer to the rest of your post, Emanon, you have written…”But of course it has further to go in the deprived areas.” In writing this you have acknowledged that you are aware of the inequality between areas, but then the sarcastic aside…”Perhaps Sha would like to see action to prevent improvements in the affluent areas to enable the other areas to catch up?” Why the sarcasm Emanon? Do you think that OF COURSE the affluent areas should have better healthcare than the poorer areas? Personally I think that EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE should have EQUAL healthcare and that there should be improvements in ALL AREAS. But, if the differences in health between the areas is that the affluent areas have access to better healthcare facilities and there is more money being spent on healthcare in these areas then OF COURSE the balance should be redressed! However, I think that the main reasons for poorer health in the deprived areas are more largely due to the deprived socio-economic circumstances in these areas. My criticism re Warrington’s ‘long term plan’ to address healthcare inequality is due to the fact that I don’t think they have any real enthusiasm and certainly no urgency in addressing the problem, (they think that a plan that will take 20 YEARS to show any real results is sufficient!!!). Also, after listening to a spokesperson from the PCT saying that…. they weren’t sure why the inequalities existed in the first place but that they might be due to people in deprived areas not going to the doctors as often as people in the more affluent areas….. I wonder whether they have even grasped the main problems!!!

4 Comments

Sha on 11th December 2010 12:00 pm 12:00 pm

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to have said “People in (SOME AREAS OF) Warrington are living longer and healthier lives” Dr Robertson says “Our main challenge is to ensure that this continues, particularly within the communities that experience the most inequalities in health.” Wouldn’t it be more accurate to have said “Our main challenge is to ensure that this EXTENDS TO the communities that experience the most inequalities in health.” ? Warrington’s ‘long term plan’ to lessen the gap between health inequalities is too ‘long term’ and will in effect be just too late for too many people!

Emanon on 12th December 2010 11:23 am 11:23 am

My understanding is that health is improving in ALL areas of Warrington. But of course it has further to go in the deprived areas. Perhaps Sha would like to see action to prevent improvements in the affluent areas to enable the other areas to catch up?

Sha on 12th December 2010 10:18 pm 10:18 pm

Emanon, my criticism of this article was that it gives an overly optimistic impression of health in Warrington, which does not reflect the true picture. An overly optimistic impression that you however seem to now have. From where in this article did you get the ‘understanding’ that health is improving in ALL areas of Warrington? Perhaps from the statement, “Health in Warrington is really improving, people are living longer …..” firstly note, people in general are living longer, not just in Warrington. Secondly, though this statement refers to Warrington it does not give indicators specific to different areas of the town. In a recent critical report, which was far more informative, it was noted that people in deprived areas in Warrington live on average 8-10 years less than those in more affluent areas and there is nothing in this report to indicate that there has been any improvements to lessen this gap of inequality.

The positive aspects of this report are given as “Major health indicators such as obesity, sexual health screening, teenage pregnancy and childhood immunisation, show that Warrington is currently outperforming the North West and England averages.” BUT the negative aspects are……. “There are concerns that Warrington residents’ on average have a lower survival rate for cancer,….. ”

ALSO….” We’re also making real progress into complex and long-standing health issues such as heart disease”. As Warrington has one of the highest rates for Cardio-vascular disease not just in Britain but in the whole of the world, it might have been expected that a detailed update on this would have been given. If any REAL progress had been made in this field I’m sure they would have been shouting it from the rooftops rather than just slipping it unobtrusively into this article.

If you look at the actual facts it’s not exactly the rosy picture they’ve tried to present is it? In answer to the rest of your post, Emanon, you have written…”But of course it has further to go in the deprived areas.” In writing this you have acknowledged that you are aware of the inequality between areas, but then the sarcastic aside…”Perhaps Sha would like to see action to prevent improvements in the affluent areas to enable the other areas to catch up?” Why the sarcasm Emanon? Do you think that OF COURSE the affluent areas should have better healthcare than the poorer areas? Personally I think that EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE should have EQUAL healthcare and that there should be improvements in ALL AREAS. But, if the differences in health between the areas is that the affluent areas have access to better healthcare facilities and there is more money being spent on healthcare in these areas then OF COURSE the balance should be redressed! However, I think that the main reasons for poorer health in the deprived areas are more largely due to the deprived socio-economic circumstances in these areas. My criticism re Warrington’s ‘long term plan’ to address healthcare inequality is due to the fact that I don’t think they have any real enthusiasm and certainly no urgency in addressing the problem, (they think that a plan that will take 20 YEARS to show any real results is sufficient!!!). Also, after listening to a spokesperson from the PCT saying that…. they weren’t sure why the inequalities existed in the first place but that they might be due to people in deprived areas not going to the doctors as often as people in the more affluent areas….. I wonder whether they have even grasped the main problems!!!

Baz on 15th December 2010 1:15 am 1:15 am

does anyone really care? After all, you could walk out in front of a bus and die tomorrow….. when your time is up, your time is up!