So, does the ‘Train’ element aim to wean the health service in England off its dependence on international recruitment? Does it end the reliance on temporary (bank) staff? It does not. If its assumptions hold true, it would greatly reduce the inflow of new international staff but it certainly wouldn’t end it. Equally, while it aims to reduce the use of agency/bank staff, it does not claim to remove it, and indeed, some use of bank staff is probably both inevitable and desirable.
The plan also looks to reduce the number of staff leaving the service (the ‘Retain’ element), but only to levels experienced in the recent past which, given that the `Train’ and `Reform’ sections have more new to say, may be just as well. So, despite the radicalism of some of the measures included, the plan has avoided the temptation to claim that the current crisis can be miraculously turned round. At the broadest level the plan also looks consistent with the stated objective of shifting the balance of care towards primary and community services: workforce growth is expected to be fastest in mental health, followed by community, then primary care and, finally, the acute sector (though even here it is not trivial). This represents a major turnaround compared to recent history.
What might stand in the way of this plan becoming reality? Taken together it amounts to an enormous work programme and a work programme that includes some tricky components, not least developing and growing new workforce roles in the health care system that will mean work for policy-makers, the professions and their leaders, and regulators.
Changing the culture of the NHS as set out in the `Retain’ section has been an aspiration for a while and will remain hard. The plan is also coming at a time of enormous and prolonged operational stress in the NHS and a major change programme for NHS England and its new merged partner Health Education England. In addition, the plan has been published at a time of industrial action, that also needs resolution. Particularly for the `Retain’ element, much of the work falls to integrated care boards, which are new and still finding their feet. There will need to be resolute focus from NHS England, ICB and other system not to let some of these longer-term agendas fall behind.
There are also elements of optimism in the plan, perhaps most of all the assumption that productivity can rise to 1.5–2 per cent a year. This is definitely not where the NHS is at the moment and the plan itself repeatedly describes this goal as ambitious. Having said that – as one might expect from a document published by NHS England – it makes clear that this can only be achieved if significant capital investment (and digital investment) is made available. Though not a plan for social care, it also makes clear that it assumes social care will at least get no worse, or words to that effect. If these critical areas of the plan don’t hold true then the NHS in England will be left relying more on international recruits and on temporary staff than the plan aims for.
It will also need money and much of that will need to come from governments of the future. However, I do not see that as a failing of the report – it is inevitable in something called a long-term plan that it is going to cross multiple parliaments.
How, with all these moving parts, can a plan set out the path for the next 15 years? Things are bound to change. The plan sets out an answer to this challenge too: it will be updated every two years. If its assumptions don’t prove accurate, then instead of drifting on regardless, there is a correction mechanism built in. Of course, this relies on future governments actually allowing this to happen so its success can only be judged over time but if they do, then it is this that holds the possibility of avoiding the boom and bust (mainly bust) that has characterised the history of the NHS workforce. Now that really would be a historic change.
The biggest point public sector organisation miss, is that everything you spend is generated by the private sector.
The NHS is an over bloated organisation, which has lost its morale compass and any sense of direction about patients outcomes. Set up to serve the people and not the hoards of HHS hangers on whom believe it’s there for there benefits and not the people who fund them.
Time to break this political debate apart. Time for politicians to Grow a set of morals, and strip this massive tax burden apart, which costs 44% of GDP. Question who pays for it. The contributors to tax, and all other factors are not recognised.
Our NHS is lorded, and yet it is ranked number 16 against comparable European Countries. The NHS patient recovery after serious treatment is ranked the worst in Europe.
And yet the NHS keeps kicking the can down the road, for more money. Yet recovery rates for patients post major surgery is declining rapidly.
Wake up and smell the coffee, the reform needs to take place in pulling this whole organisation apart. 75 years, it’s about time to think of the next ten years.
Tax payers, those that do, are sick of funding a none performing gravy train. Which politicians of all colours lord. Because they do not have the motivation or moral compass to make a change. Happy to keep leeching off the tax payer to keep themselves in a gold plated job, without rocking the boat. My ancestors, who fought in both world wars would have no time for this weak, woke, gutless generation that call themselves leaders.
Not the generation that fought against the blight that gave people today’s opportunity, that’s for sure.