LAHHP East Sussex 2020-01-03

Local authority health protection profile

East Sussex

Field Service, National Infection Service

03 January 2020

 

Summary

The following indicators were better in East Sussex than in England:

The following indicators were worse in East Sussex than in England:

The following indicators were lower in East Sussex than in England:

The following indicators were higher in East Sussex than in England:

Figure 1. Chart showing key health protection information for East Sussex local authority residents compared to the rest of England

The local result for each indicator is shown as a circle, against the range of results for England shown as a grey bar. The line at the centre of the chart shows the England average, the diamond shows the average for the South East PHE Centre.

Compared to England:

  • Better Better
  • Similar Similar
  • Worse Worse
  • or
  • Lower Lower
  • Similar Similar
  • Higher Higher
  • or
  • Not compared Not compared
Key for spine bars

Key for spine bars

Figure 2. Population vaccine coverage in East Sussex compared to South East PHE Centre and England

Figure 3. Rates of selected indicators over time in East Sussex compared to South East PHE Centre and England

Introduction

This report presents information on a range of health protection issues in a local area in an integrated way. This is produced alongside other PHE health intelligence tools to help local stakeholders identify health protection priorities.

This report is compiled from publically available data on the online Health Protection Profiles. Please access this tool for further data analysis and more information about the data which is described in the ‘definitions’ tab for each indicator. A list of data sources is available in the ‘Data sources’ section of this report.

It is important to understand the limitations of the data presented when interpreting a local authority indicator being higher/lower or better/worse than England. The caveats to each indicator are explained in the ‘definitions’ tab for each indicator on the online Health Protection Profiles. Interpretation of local variation will need consideration of a range of factors which may include:

The information in this report may differ from that originating from different data sources which are defined, collected, analysed in different ways. For example, information presented here may differ from that used locally which is sourced from HPZone, a PHE public health management system used by local Health Protection Teams.

City of London and Isles of Scilly are not included in the rankings in this document. Where comparisons are made to Hackney or Cornwall, please note that the data for these areas may have been combined with City of London and Isles of Scilly respectively. Please check the online Health Protection Profiles for this information.

This report has been developed for the best viewing experience in Google Chrome. It has also been tested with Internet Explorer 11 and Microsoft Edge, but some content may look different (for example, the table of contents is not available in Internet Explorer). When viewed in Google Chrome, this report can be converted to a PDF through the Print menu. Select “Save as PDF” as the destination. For the best result, it is recommended to select the “background graphics” option and deselect the “headers and footers” option. Some other browsers also offer PDF conversion, but the formatting may not display as intended.

Gastrointestinal infections

This section has information on a range of gastrointestinal infections that are the focus of public health activity.

Figure 4. Chart showing gastrointestinal infections in East Sussex local authority compared to the rest of England

The local result for each indicator is shown as a circle, against the range of results for England shown as a grey bar. The line at the centre of the chart shows the England average, the diamond shows the average for the South East PHE Centre.

Compared to England:

  • Better Better
  • Similar Similar
  • Worse Worse
  • or
  • Lower Lower
  • Similar Similar
  • Higher Higher
  • or
  • Not compared Not compared
Key for spine bars

Key for spine bars

Table 1. Number of new cases of GI pathogens by year, East Sussex

Indicator 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Typhoid/paratyphoid 0 1 3 0 0 2 1
Salmonella (non-typhoidal) - - - 61 32 71 -
Campylobacter - - - 645 579 576 -
Shigella - - - 19 14 15 -
STEC O157 6 3 5 6 6 6 8
Listeria 2 1 3 4 2 1 0
Giardia - - - 33 55 47 -
Cryptosporidium - - - 62 49 31 -

Typhoid and paratyphoid

Typhoid and paratyphoid (also known as enteric fever) are diseases caused by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (typhoid) or Paratyphi A, B and C (paratyphoid). Classic typhoid fever is a serious disease which can be life-threatening unless treated promptly with antibiotics. Paratyphoid is typically milder than typhoid and of shorter duration. Typhoid and paratyphoid are almost exclusively acquired abroad through the ingestion of heavily contaminated food and water. Typhoid and paratyphoid are spread from person-to-person by the faecal-oral route. Therefore, their prevention and control is dependent on good sanitation, clean water and scrupulous personal hygiene. The typhoid vaccine offers limited protection against typhoid and no protection at all against paratyphoid. Variation in rates of typhoid and paratyphoid may reflect variation in underlying populations e.g. by ethnicity, but are also indicative of the need for a public health focus on pre-travel advice and vaccination.

In 2018, the number of East Sussex residents who were diagnosed with typhoid or paratyphoid was 1 (the number in 2017 was 2). The typhoid/paratyphoid rate per 100,000 residents was 0.2 in 2018, similar to 0.6 per 100,000 in England. The rank of East Sussex for this was 89th highest (out of 150 upper tier local authorities and unitary authorities (UTLAs/UAs)).

Figure 5. Rates per 100,000 population of typhoid/paratyphoid in 16 similar UTLAs/UAs and the South East PHE Centre, compared to England: 2018

Similar refers to statistical nearest neighbours, derived from CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours Model