Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Hospital chief exec to chair NICE nurse staffing group


A respected team of nurse researchers are to play a key role in drawing up future guidance on safe ward staffing levels, but the final decision on what to recommend will be overseen by a health service manager.  

Nursing Times understands that the nursing academics who led research that found patients were at risk if registered nurse to patient ratios fell below one to eight have been commissioned to conduct a government backed review of the evidence on safe nurse staffing levels.

However, the advisory committee that will make final recommendations on nurse staffing on acute adult inpatient wards will be chaired by a hospital chief executive.

As part of the government’s response to the Francis report into care failings at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, health secretary Jeremy Hunt asked the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence to develop guidance on safe staffing.

Following an open tender, NICE has awarded the contract to conduct a literature review to the University of Southampton.

The team will be led by Professor Peter Griffiths, the university’s chair of health services research. Professor Jane Ball, deputy director of the National Nursing Research Unit at King’s College London, will also contribute to the review.

They worked together on the seminal RN4CAST study, which found hospitals with an average ratio worse than 1:8 would expect to see around 2% more deaths per year among surgical patients and 1% for medical patients, compared to the best staffed 20% of hospitals.

Their research has been championed by the Safe Staffing Alliance – a coalition of nursing organisations and unions formed almost a year ago – that is calling for a national minimum staffing ratio of 1:8.

A spokeswoman for NICE said the researchers had been commissioned to conduct “objective reviews of the literature” but “not to make recommendations on staffing levels”.

She said the recommendations for staffing on acute adult inpatient wards would come from a new body, to be called the staffing levels advisory committee. It would consider the evidence “alongside relevant economic models”, she said.

The advisory committee is to be chaired by Miles Scott, chief executive of St George’s Healthcare Trust in London.

It will also include two directors of nursing, three other senior nurses, a healthcare assistant representative, a health economist and three external workforce experts as well as representatives from other health professions. The full membership will be announced next year.

A spokeswoman for NICE said Mr Scott had been chosen to chair the group as an “excellent chair with the skills to lead an independent committee through the complex areas of research related to staffing”.

Speaking during an NHS England webinar on the topic, Mr Scott said major challenges to delivering safe staffing levels included patients with special needs, varying dependency and poor operational processes.

“You can have a fantastic ward manager, you can have brilliant staffing levels but if the operational processes – [such as] the way in which meals are bought into the wards, the timing of ward rounds –  are poor, staff and leadership have to compensate for that,” he said.

He said his group would also have to consider the “challenge of productivity” but posed the question of whether staffing would become a “no go area” for efficiency savings.

He added: “We need to understand both how we deliver our productivity requirements and also our quality and safety requirements.”

Guidance on staffing levels for acute adult inpatient setting is the first of 10 topics to be produced by NICE. Subsequent areas include accident and emergency, mental health inpatient and community settings and operating theatres.

A steering group is being set up to prioritise the topics that are looked at, although recent NICE board papers suggest areas where an evidence base already exists will be first to get guidance.


Are you able to Speak Out Safely? Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS.


Readers' comments (3)

  • Miles Scott, chief executive of St George’s Healthcare Trust in London.

    May I suggest this person works as an HCA before being entrusted with this important job ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Additionally leaving this vital decision to a manager is just silly-one of the bed managers at QA in Portsmouth was previously a manager at Krispy Creme doughnuts-how does this prepare you for working in the NHS??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I believe this is silence any messages which might be unwelcome to politicians and policy makers.

    Most NHS managers come from anywhere but the NHS (this goes back to the Griffiths Report) and requires you to believe that anyone who understands health care must automatically have a biased viewpoint. Also, you have to believe that such bias is much more dangerous than total ignorance.

    This is we have a class of wretched bureaucrats getting rich on the transaction costs of the purchaser/provider split, instead of spending NHS funds on patient care. It's sheer politicised nonsense and always was.

    It's also why we have no workforce planning any more, so we either have to recruit skilled staff from countries who can ill afford to lose them, or run our services on frightened and exploited HCAs. Either way, patients and staff get a rotten deal.

    These aren't evidence of good management from industry & commerce coming in to 'save' the NHS! They're evidence of the incompetence and successive failures of managers who are unfit to be running public services.

    I think the senior academic nurses who are involved with this work need to risk speaking out, leaking evidence of suppression of facts and, if necessary, producing a minority dissenting report if the findings are politically 'sanitised'. They face a difficult moral task as well as a research review.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs