The government’s decision to abolish NHS England could have ‘significant implications’ for the effective training of healthcare workers in critical areas such as infection control and hospital-acquired infections.
Lucy Kenyon, a senior lecturer and national practice teacher in occupational health, has warned that the decision will have ramifications in particular for Health Education England (HEE), which was only integrated into NHS England a couple of months ago.
“This move, aimed at reducing bureaucracy and bringing the health service back under direct government control to reallocate funds to frontline services does not yet address how education and training of the health workforce in England will be delivered,” she said in an online post.
NHS workforce
NHS England: ‘world’s largest quango’ to be abolished
It raised questions around what impact it will have on areas such as training-related catastrophic incidents and adverse patient outcomes, Kenyon pointed out.
In particular, she questioned whether there would be an impact on training around new medication protocols, on new surgical techniques or equipment, on infection control practices and hospital-acquired infection, on effective communication skills, and on emergency protocols.
“The integration into NHS England was intended to streamline operations and improve efficiency. However, with NHS England’s abolition, the future of HEE’s functions and responsibilities is unclear. There are concerns about potential disruptions to ongoing training programs and workforce planning initiatives,” Kenyon wrote.
“In summary, while the abolition of NHS England is aimed at cutting bureaucracy and improving efficiency, the impact on professional development needs to be clarified and prioritised as a matter of urgency,” she added.
Separately, Siva Anandaciva, director of policy, events, and partnerships policy at the think-tank The King’s Fund, has argued that the announcement has caught many people working in and around healthcare by surprise, and raised more questions than answers.
“The changes must be about more than saving money,” he has written. “The reported £175 million that will be saved through the cuts to the national bodies pales in comparison to the almost £7 billion financial deficit NHS trusts are anticipating next year. And while I fully accept that there is some unnecessary duplication across parts of DHSC [Department of Health and Social Care] and NHS England, I would need convincing that there is enough duplication to justify halving the workforce (particularly given how much larger NHS England is compared with the DHSC).”
“At some point as a country, we have to stop trying to design the ‘perfect’ health care system and instead try to maximise the opportunities of the one we have. So as with all good impact assessments of major changes to government, ministers will eventually need to provide a good answer to the questions, ‘What is the specific problem to address?’ and ‘What is the best way of achieving that goal?’,” he said.
“Creating and destroying England biggest quango is something so time-consuming and significant in health care policy that you’d only want to do it once. And you’d want the juice to be worth the squeeze. This government has certainly started something. But I don’t know how this is all meant to end. And more worryingly, I’m not sure who does,” Anandaciva added.
HR opportunities in the public sector on Personnel Today
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Browse more HR opportunities in the public sector
