Innovation and diversity in public health team engagement in local alcohol premises licensing: qualitative interview findings from the ExILEnS study.

Background: Evidence suggests that controls on the physical and temporal availability of alcohol can reduce alcohol-related harms. Public health teams in England and Scotland have in recent years been given a statutory role in licensing systems through which premises are granted permits to sell alcohol. The Exploring the Impact of alcohol premises Licensing in England and Scotland study examined public health team efforts to engage in alcohol licensing from 2012 to 2019.

Objective: We aimed to describe the range of public health team practice in engaging with alcohol licensing across England and Scotland, with a particular focus on unusual or innovative practices.

Methods: Two sets of interviews were conducted with 20 public health teams in England and Scotland who were actively engaged in alcohol premises licensing. Firstly, representatives of each public health team with experience of licensing activity took part in structured face-to-face or telephone interviews (n = 41) and provided documentation to identify how and when their team engaged with alcohol premises licensing. Secondly, members of public health teams took part in in-depth one-to-one interviews (n = 28) which focused on individual roles and responsibilities. Relevant public health team activity was analysed quantitatively within 19 activities in 6 categories using the 'Public Health engagement In Alcohol Licensing' measure, as well as qualitatively using NVivo (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). Innovative practices were identified using the highest Public Health engagement In Alcohol Licensing scores for specific activity types across single or multiple 6-month periods.

Findings: Within each of the six activity categories, a range of practices were observed. More unusual practices included having a dedicated post to work full-time on alcohol licensing; developing a standardised reviewer tool allowing the team to respond to applications and provide the most relevant evidence in a consistent and systematic way; committing to additional scrutiny of occasional licences or temporary event notices; maintaining a detailed database recording applications made, whether the public health team decided to object and the outcome of the licensing board's decision; engaging with applicants prior to them submitting an application; visiting proposed/current licensed premises to gather bespoke data; leading the writing of local licensing policy; and working closely with licensing standards officers.

Conclusions: Across six categories of public health team activity relating to the local alcohol premises licensing system, public health team practices varied, and some public health teams stood out as engaging in more innovative or intensive activities. The identified examples will be of value in informing public health team practice in what remains a relatively new area of work for many, despite limitations in the system. The inclusion of examples from both England and Scotland and from many public health teams will facilitate cross-fertilisation of ideas and practice across public health teams.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number 15/129/11.