Evidence submitted by Dr Deirdre Kelley-Patterson,
Thames Valley University (WP 96)
One year ago National Workforce Projects commissioned
from us a Postgraduate Certificate in Strategic Workforce Planning.
The first cohort is nearing the end of the taught part of the
course. Those on the course are drawn from across the NHS in England,
working in SHAs, PCTs, NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts. There
are also a few attendees from Wales and Scotland and one from
Skills for Health.
The purpose of the certificate is four-fold.
First to equip the students with some workforce planning tools,
but more importantly to provide them with an understanding of
both the current and future strategic policy context in which
they work, to provide them with a network of contacts working
in the same area and finally to demonstrate the importance of
linking workforce planning (WFP) with service and financial planning
and service modernisation, so that they can appreciate the need
to plan tomorrow's workforce for tomorrow's world.
At the end of the course we asked them to complete
a short questionnaire on how they saw the current state of workforce
planning from their perspective and how well linked it was with
general service development. They have given us their permission
to use the results of the survey for this submission. It offers
a snapshot of how some of those actually involved in the daily
front line business of NHS workforce planning see its current
state.
Those on the course were asked to rate on a
scale of 1 to 5, one being the lowest and five the highest rating,
how they perceived the NHS valued workforce planning, to what
extent WFP was done on a multidisciplinary basis, how well it
was integrated with service, business, financial and PFI/capital
planning, and the level of integration with service modernisation
and with social care and the independent and voluntary sectors.
These last two received the lowest scores with
ones and twos predominating. Not surprisingly the lowest scores
were from those working in Trusts. However those in PCTs and SHAs
averaged between 1.5 and 2.5. The perceived value of WFP in practice
was also low with a mean score of 2. There was some comment that
the value of the concept of WFP was more highly rated than that
of its practical application. Integration with the other elements
of planning listed was scored by most at between 2 and 3, with
only the occasional 4, but rather more ones. Within the low overall
scores there were examples of good innovative practice, but they
tended to stay local and not spread. This failure to capitalise
on successful innovation is a recurrent theme.
Respondents were unanimous that there was no
recognised career structure for workforce planners and that the
NHS, in the main, associated such planning with data collection
and number crunching. Many managers felt that it had little relevance
to their work, particularly at Trust level. There has clearly
been considerable local variation in the amount of training and
support given. Some localities and institutions eg Manchester
and its business school were mentioned by several respondents
as providing good support and training courses. In other parts
of the country there was little or nothing. The workforce support
material being produced by National Workforce Projects was quoted
by many as being very useful.
The response to questions about the strategic
leadership of WFP locally and about the role of the SHAs and PCTs
in this process was also mixed. These new structures are bedding
down and a number of respondents felt that, while things were
currently unclear, it was too soon to make any judgement about
how they would develop. In a number of SHAs the prominence given
to this area does seem to be reduced, while in others a strong
team is being put in place. While there is general agreement about
the importance of commissioning being properly integrated with
WFP at PCT level, no one seems very clear about how this will
be done in practice and from where PCTs will get the necessary
expertise. At Trust and PCT level workforce planners did have
links with service managers. A few had links with clinicians too,
but clinicians, about whom most workforce planning is concerned,
seemed quite remote from these processes. The exceptions were
a few postgraduate deaneries, which are getting more closely involved
with their SHAs.
Those on the course are a self-selected group
and we cannot tell whether their comments would be typical of
their colleagues across the country. They are keen and thoughtful.
It is striking that they have come to the course with very different
levels of expertise and those whose thinking is most highly developed
and integrated with other service strands, have come from areas
where there is high level interest and commitment to WFP as a
useful service function. They want to see a more integrated and
critical approach that goes beyond data collecting and number
crunching. They see the reorganisation as an opportunity for this,
but many are fearful that there will, in fact, be a loss of key
skills and influence. Effective work with social care seems patchy
and that with the independent and voluntary sectors almost non-existent.
Clinicians, with the exception of some postgraduate deans, seem
remote from WFP. A few respondents mentioned Modernising Medical
Careers, but there was no mention of other clinical professional
groups.
Dr Deirdre Kelley-Patterson,
Centre for the Study of Policy & Practice in
Health & Social Care,
Thames Valley University
6 December 2006
| 
