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

Trusts committed to nurse recruitment despite regulator headcount cuts plan

  • 8 Comments

Trusts under pressure to make greater efforts to reduce deficits have indicated they will not be limiting nurse staffing numbers, despite suggestions of “headcount reduction” by regulators.

A snapshot survey of financially challenged acute and mental health trusts by Nursing Times has found most do not plan to reduce nurse numbers, with some stating they are committed to increasing staffing levels.

“We continue to take very seriously our position on  maintaining safe nursing ratios”

Northern Lincolnshire and Goole

A joint letter sent in January by regulators Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority warned trusts that “collective urgent action” was required to contain this year’s deficit to £1.8bn. The letter asked providers to consider a range of actions they could take to improve their financial position for 2015-16.

It added that regulators would meet with a number of “challenged” providers to agree a set of actions, including headcount reduction, with the “clear intention of improving the financial position of those individual providers”.

“We are firmly committed to reducing our reliance on costly agency staff”

Karen Rule

Nursing Times asked 21 foundation trusts listed by Monitor as having a “significant” or “material” level of financial risk whether they had or intended to meet with the regulator on this issue and if they would implement a strategy of “headcount reduction” for nurses.

Of the 12 that responded, none said they would be reducing nurse headcount at this time. Most said they had not met – or did not expect to meet – with the regulator to discuss reducing nurse staff numbers, with six going on to emphasise their commitment to maintaining or boosting numbers.

Sam Foster, chief nurse at Heart of England Foundation Trust, said the organisation was actively recruiting staff and had employed around 500 nurses and midwives in the past year.

Sam Foster

Sam Foster

Sam Foster

“The trust does not have any plans to reduce the nursing headcount,” she said. “We have a robust schedule of workforce reviews in place to check that we have the right amount of staff in our clinical areas.”

A spokeswoman for East Kent Hospitals University Foundation Trust said it also had no plans to reduce nursing frontline headcount, noting the organisation had spent £3m to meet safe staffing requirements.

Karen Rule, director of nursing at Medway Foundation Trust, said it was due to bring in cohorts of new permanent nursing staff in 2016. But she stressed the trust was “firmly committed” to reducing its use of expensive agency workers.

“Like many other NHS trusts, we are firmly committed to reducing our reliance on costly agency staff,” she said. ”This commitment will be enhanced by the arrival of cohorts of new permanent nursing staff throughout this year.”

Meanwhile, University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust said over the past two years it had increased its numbers of nurses by 25%, to around 2,550 and that it was still recruiting.

Medway NHS Foundation Trust

Trusts commit to nurse recruitment despite regulator warning

Karen Rule

Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Foundation Trust noted that while “tight control” of overall staffing costs was a “very major theme” in its discussions with Monitor, the focus had so far been on agency workers.

“At this point, we do not envisage any reduction in nursing establishment as a result of action from Monitor, and we continue to take very seriously our position as regards maintaining safe and effective nursing ratios,” said a trust spokeswoman.

However, it was “very unlikely” organisations would be able to reduce deficits without taking action on nurse staffing, according to a healthcare policy expert.

Even by reducing spend through the recently introduced caps on hourly rates for agency workers – which the government estimates will save £1bn by 2018 – this will not be enough to significantly reduce the NHS deficit, projected to reach £2.3bn by the end of March, he told Nursing Times.

“In the challenge between money and quality, they are backing quality of care”

Richard Murray

Richard Murray, director of policy at the King’s Fund think-tank, suggested trusts may soon be forced into reducing numbers of permanent employees by regulators if they continue to choose safe staffing over controlling their finances.

But when trusts had been made to do this previously – around a decade ago when the health service was last in deficit – it had proven “enormously unpopular”, he warned.

“This survey of trusts suggests organisations will be made to do it [reduce nurse headcount]. They are certainly not going to do that voluntarily. In the challenge between money and quality, they are backing quality of care, at least in terms of safe staffing. So that could be a real tussle,” he said.

Many organisations were also breaching the rules on agency caps, he said, but noted Monitor was yet to take firm action over this.

King's Fund

Exclusive: Challenged trusts commit to recruiting nurses

Richard Murray

“There is a question of nerve here for the government and national bodies. For them, they’d quite like to see organisations sorting out their own finances but if you get a lot acting in the way the ones replying to your survey have there are going to be some hard stares across the table,” he said.

Pressure on trusts to reconsider staffing numbers has been mounting in recent months. In October, NHS bodies including Monitor and the TDA were accused of “watering down” safe nurse staffing requirements in a bid to save money, after they stressed a one to eight nurse-patient ratio was just “a guide” in another letter to trusts.

Afterwards chief nurses raised concerns at Nursing Times’ inaugural Directors’ Congress that trust decisions would be increasingly made based on financial rather than safety considerations.

Foundation trusts that responded to Nursing Times about reducing nurse headcount:

  • Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust
  • Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medway NHS Foundation Trust
  • The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
  • Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
  • East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
  • Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • Basildon and Thurrock Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

 

  • 8 Comments

Readers' comments (8)

  • michael stone

    '... A joint letter sent in January by regulators Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority ...'

    Rock and a hard place ?

    No mention of the CQC there, unless I missed it - so it looks as if Monitor and NHS TDA are telling hospitals 'reduce your staffing costs or else' when the hospitals know that if they do that, the CQC will assess their services as being inadequate/dangerous.

    But, perhaps I have missed something.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Spot on Michael,
    Who else have they to blame I ask, they have been under funding Nurse Training and recruitment for years, they are now having to resort to recruiting overseas staff from Nursing Homes, which is rather ironic don't you think particularly after Unison has being trying to get this source of Nurses blocked over the last few years.
    I have campaigned for years now to let Nursing homes train up their staff to a specialist Nursing Level , for some reason this idea has never caught on, I wonder why?

    Gerald

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Couldn't agree with you more Michael. The CQC has powers to close down any ward that they deem unfit and of course staffing levels are a key factor of inadequate care.
    With regards to training more nurses within the UK , read somewhere that it costs around £70,000 to train a nurse for 3 years yet that same amount can pay wages for 3 already trained foreign nurses for 1 year at £23,000/annum each. Now to me this is something that ought to be brought to the lime light because a lot of Brits hate the prospect of no jobs due to foreigners taking all jobs but who really is pulling these strings? I was gobsmacked when I researched more on the recruitment process and it's appalling that the top people keep it under wraps and allow the rest of us to only see and know just a glimpse. I have many friends who have failed to get into nurse training and now I know why.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All designed to wynd down the NHS and privatise. Come on Monitor you're kidding no one. I suggest April time a real backlash will begin due to unsafe staffing. Monitor punishes trusts then trust get in more debt if they get the staff and if they obey Monitor with little staff they get closed down by the CQC. What a ! government we have. And Monitor a paid bunch of !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You know what. If nursing was a more attractive profession to work in with better salary and better benefits for staff there would be better nursing numbers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 27 FEBRUARY, 2016 12:47 PM
    Bad Management they might be but definitely NOT stupid,
    maybe these people should lose their jobs but they won't be sacking themselves I'm sure

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 27 FEBRUARY, 2016 12:47 PM
    Bad Management they might be but definitely NOT stupid,
    maybe these people should lose their jobs but they won't be sacking themselves I'm sure

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Better Salary and conditions" how often have heard that in the last 30 years I wonder ? if everything is so bad why are Doctors and Nurses queueing up to come here ?

    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.