Alcohol and Drugs Consultation Summary report

To summarise findings from the quantitative professional stakeholder consultation data, the following points emerge:

• Knowledge of services: respondents were more aware of drug compared to alcohol services. Just over one third of respondents from the professional stakeholder group felt informed about alcohol services in the community; and just under two thirds reported that they did not feel informed. The most well-known services were those of drug treatment, with 60% of stakeholders being informed of what was available.
• Service performance indicators: most key indicators for adults, such as making a referral and waiting times, were reported to be satisfactory, with the exception of feedback, for both services, which was unsatisfactory. Feedback was reported to happen more often in services for young people.
• Service strengths and weaknesses: there were relatively high satisfaction levels for service location, confidentiality and staff, and lower levels for childcare and age appropriate nature of services.
• Method of information delivery/communication: there was a preference for web-based communications but respondents were also supportive of a range of methods and media types including leaflets and radio.
• Service delivery method: the three most popular delivery methods were face-to-face, telephone and text. The most preferred method was face-to-face and the least was video- link.
• Service delivery venues:there was support for delivery of services from a number of venue types, although there were differences in venue choice between alcohol and drugs: with the former showing the highest support for GP delivery, followed by other locations in the community; and the latter showing high support for delivery in the community, including from youth services, pharmacies and GP practices. Respondents also added outreach in their 'other' free text category in the questionnaire.
• Service integration: for respondents who delivered services, it was reported that alcohol and drug services were integrated into existing services. The data showed a more positive response from alcohol compared to drug services.
• Working together: a significantly higher number of respondents reported that they were working together with other organisations, in relation to sharing information, producing a joint care plan and providing joint support, as opposed to not cooperating.
• Meeting needs of groups with protected characteristics: although there were a relatively high number of respondents who felt unable to comment, many stakeholders felt they were meeting the needs of groups with protected characteristics which included women, disabled people, LGBT and BAME (this is not the same as the qualitative findings).
• Training needs: there were felt to be training needs amongst respondents with just over 50% of respondents requiring alcohol training and 60% of respondents requiring drug- related training. There was an even response from respondents about the format of training, with approximately 30% of respondents preferring multi agency, bespoke team and online alcohol and drugs training, and approximately 20% requesting printed training material.

Using the quantitative consultation data from the general public(incorporating elected members) questionnaires, we make the following findings:

• Councillors and constituents: two thirds of all councillors who responded said that alcohol-related issues were raised by their constituents, and 90% of elected members said that drugs-related issues were raised. The majority of the alcohol-related issues related to youth disorder and antisocial behaviour; and the drug-related issues included antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and violence.
• Information and support:most people access information about problematic alcohol or drug use from the Internet, followed by the current treatment provider, which is followed by work colleagues. In relation to accessing support, respondents reported the most likely place they would go, included GP practices, the current treatment provider and pharmacies.
• Service barriers: the largest barriers causing people not to use services, were people not knowing about what services were available, followed by the stigma associated with alcohol and drug use, which was followed by a long wait for an appointment time.
• Improvement proposals:there were two main proposals from the general public about how to improve services. The first of these was more preventative work through education and awareness raising about the effects of problematic alcohol and drug use, and the treatment services available. The second proposal was publicity on the range of treatment services available and where and how to access them.