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


'Nursing and patients will suffer if there are no nurses in the DH'

  • 1 Comment

The Nursing Times news story on reducing the number of nurses in the Department of Health (5 April 2016) exposed a serious issue of which the nursing profession should be aware.

baroness audrey emerton

baroness audrey emerton

In February 2016 the DH published its shared delivery plan, which outlines its prime function. It says, it:

“…will set the direction and coordinate action across the health and care system, which comprises public health, the NHS and adult social care. We work with our partners to ensure everyone can access the health and care they need, from supporting people to have the best start in life, to staying in good health and, where that might not be possible, supporting people to live as independently as they can”.

This has considerable impact and is a commendable vision: it is bigger than the NHS and is particularly relevant for nurses because they practise in public health and social care as well as the NHS. And yet, according to the article, the DH intends to meet these aims relying on a civil service that has no embedded nurses.

The nurses in the DH are employed as civil servants, bound by the civil service Code as well as the that of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. They advise ministers and policy teams on nursing and midwifery policy and have a liaison relationship with the UK and European chief nursing officers. Appointed on merit through fair and open competition, they are expected to carry out the role with dedication and commitment to the civil service and its core values of integrity, objectivity and impartiality.

If there are no nurses in the civil service there is a chance that nursing advice won’t be sought or it will be sought from those with a vested interest, who might give their opinions without supporting evidence, integrity, objectivity, impartiality or, importantly, accountability. These are the very things that support good governance and ensure the highest possible standards are achieved, which helps the civil service gain and retain the respect of ministers, parliament, the public and its partners.

It was not until I became a regional nursing officer that I realised and benefitted from the presence of the DH. Each region had a dedicated nurse for advice and guidance from the chief nursing office and could appoint a research nurse. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland likewise had a chief nursing officer and departmental nursing officers. The link between the chief nurse and departmental nurses ensured policy issues were discussed and implemented with understanding. The chance to influence policy was afforded through regular meetings between the chief nurse and regional officers which, in turn, helped determine which future policy issues were presented to ministers.

The DH has wide responsibilities outside advising ministers on the governance of healthcare provision in England (and, to an extent, devolved countries) – it also advises ministers on international health matters. It is understood that in an economic crisis savings have to be made, but it is important that before deciding to remove a function that has proved to be essential over the years (particularly when there is no indication that such a need may change), cognisance should be given to retaining the nursing voice when advice is given on policy issues relating to all matters of health and healthcare delivery.

The nursing profession represents the largest single workforce in the health service and deserves to have a voice at the table that influences future healthcare policy. Do we really want our nurses to return to a pre-Florence Nightingale era?

Baroness Audrey Emerton is a former nurse and cross-bench peer in the House of Lords



  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • As a former DH nursing officer, I saw that senior officials felt most confident seeking advice from nurses, midwives and health visitors whom they knew to be impartial and whose advice was supported by the evidence they presented. Politicians are very different and tend to draw on personal and politically affiliated sources. Evidence may be disregarded in favour of a kind of gut instinct.

    Part of the difficulty we face is a more politicised civil service & greater political advisor input. Again, evidence may be filtered or set aside if it is seen to support other arguments or other political perspectives. Balanced consideration isn't an issue.

    What I worry about is the fragility of the NHS and care services exposed to what amounts to policies based on political whim and prejudice, rather than evidence. Nursing and patient care have already been damaged by poor policy decisions and we saw what can happen in Mid Staffs & Winterbourne View, where some of the most vulnerable patients were not protected. I realise that nursing advice is already being ignored and discounted by policy makers, even before thevroles are abolished.

    This is probably not going to arouse much concern among hard pressed clinical practitioners, but fish aren't the only species to rot from the head down and there should be this professional voice in government at every level where health and social care and public health is a responsibility.

    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