Download Free Nhs Pay Modernisation In England Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Nhs Pay Modernisation In England and write the review.

The NHS has successfully transferred 1.1 million NHS employees on to a new simplified pay system. This was a substantial task which the NHS, in partnership with the trade unions, achieved in a short timescale. There are some examples of NHS trusts using Agenda for Change to help introduce new roles. But the Department of Health did not put enough emphasis on getting trusts to develop these new ways of working to secure the full benefits from the new pay system, so the programme is not yet achieving the intended value for money. Agenda for Change has reduced pay administration in the NHS, simplified pay negotiations and made it easier to estimate staff costs and monitor budgets. The NAO estimates that for 2007-08 the £28 billion NHS paybill is broadly similar to what it might have been if the programme had not been implemented. The Department predicted that Agenda for Change would save at least £1.3 billion by 2008-09 and productivity would increase, but it did not put in place any central monitoring arrangements to show what impact the new contract has had on productivity. The only productivity measure available for the NHS as a whole shows that productivity continued to fall when Agenda for Change was introduced, though the rate has since slowed. A key element of Agenda for Change, the Knowledge and Skills Framework, which defines the skills needed for a certain role and provides a tool for reviewing their use in the workplace, has not yet been fully implemented by many trusts. Effective use of the Framework is fundamental to achieving the full benefits of Agenda for Change.
Agenda for Change, the pay modernisation programme for 1.1 million NHS staff in England, representing a pay bill of £28 billion in 2007-08, was implemented between December 2004 and December 2006. It covered all NHS staff, except doctors, dentists and senior managers. Agenda for Change introduced a job evaluation scheme and harmonised employment terms and conditions for the multitude of jobs within the NHS. A key part of the programme is a process for encouraging staff development and improving staff performance known as the Knowledge and Skills Framework. Agenda for Change was expected to bring about new ways of working which would contribute to improved patient care and to more efficient delivery of services. Total savings of £1.3 billion over the first five years were predicted. These were to come from improvements in productivity of 1.1 to 1.5 per cent a year, reductions in equal pay claims, reduced use of agency staff and more controllable pay costs. The Department and NHS Trusts did not establish ways of measuring the effects of Agenda for Change and there is no active benefits realisation plan. The NHS pay bill for the staff covered by Agenda for Change has risen by 5.2 per cent a year on average since 2004-05 while productivity fell by 2.5 per cent a year on average between 2001 and 2005. By autumn 2008 (nearly two years after Trusts had completed transferring staff to Agenda for Change terms and conditions and pay rates) only 54 per cent of staff had had a knowledge and skills review.
Each year general medical practices provide some 290 million consultations. The new contract (implemented in April 2004 but increased spending began in April 2003) changed the basis for commissioning primary care services. Instead of contracting with individual General Practitioners (GPs), Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) commission services from some 8,325 GP practices with around 33,000 GPs. This study examines the negotiation and implementation of the new contract and how well it is working in practice. In the first three years the PCTs spent £1.76 billion (9.4 per cent) more than the minimum committed by the Department of Health. Mostly this was due to an underestimation of the amount that GPs would earn from the pay for performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and the additional cost of providing out-of-hours care (most GPs have opted out of providing this service). GPs' salaries have increased by an average of 58 per cent. Practice nurses have not benefited to the same extent. While the number of consultations with patients has increased, these are not in proportion with the increase in costs, and productivity has fallen by 2.5 per cent per year. GPs are working less hours. Some progress has been made in extending the range of patient services, reduced administration, high quality care and linking pay and performance, and staff satisfaction and morale. Progress has not yet been demonstrated in productivity, and re-designing the services around patients. The contract has contributed to improved recruitment and retention of GPs. The NAO recommends that the Department develop a strategy for yearly negotiations on the QOF, which should be based more on health outcomes. PCTs should provide more services based on local need and review the number and skills of staff employed to commission and performance manage GP services with the aim of improving local commissioning.
The Modernisation of the Public Services and Employee Relations provides an integrated and up-to-date account of changes in work and employment in the public services. The book examines a range of different sectors focusing on core public services, especially local government, the NHS and the civil service.
'24 hours to save the NHS' is the inside story written by the man with unprecedented authority as both Chief Executive of the NHS and Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health. It describes the successes and failures as well as the pressures and the difficulties of making improvements in the 4th biggest organization in the world.
Productivity in hospitals has been falling by around 1.4 per cent a year since 2000 whilst NHS expenditure has increased by over two thirds in ten years. The Department of Health has achieved significant improvements in such areas as waiting times, healthcare associated infection rates, patient outcomes, reduced cancer mortality and the patient experience. However, the NHS pay contracts introduced since 2003 have increased costs but are not always used effectively by hospitals to drive productivity improvements. The NHS needs to deliver between £15 billion and £20 billion of efficiency savings per year by 2013-14. Around 40 per cent of these savings are expected to come from increasing efficiency in hospitals, requiring productivity gains of approximately six per cent per annum. The 'Payment by Results' system of setting national tariffs has promoted some efficient practice, but there is still substantial variation between hospitals. If all hospitals performed at the level of the top 25 per cent in respect of staff costs, use of estate, control of emergency admissions and bed management, the NAO estimates that the NHS could save around £1.6 billion a year. The Department has launched a national initiative (QIPP) to help the NHS deliver annual savings of up to £20 billion. There are risks to the delivery of the initiative, which is the responsibility of Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts, whose focus may be distracted by the proposals for their closure by 2013.
Three million workers delivered health and social care in the UK in 2019, accounting for a tenth of the workforce. These frontline workers were the nurses, doctors, adult care workers, and Allied Health Professions that worked in our hospitals, GP practices, and care homes. Spending on this workforce is the largest single item of cost on health and social care, with fifty percent of the current spend of a typical UK hospital going on its frontline workforce. The Economics of the UK Health and Social Care Labour Market details the size, occupational composition, geographical coverage, and growth of this workforce. Here, Robert Elliott explains why people work in frontline care and what drives the demand for these workers, details the heavy dependence of UK health and social care on foreign trained workers and explores its consequences, and considers how the labour market for frontline workers operates, how these workers' pay is set, and what has happened to it in recent years. Elliott explores the reasons for the acute shortage of some key frontline occupations and explains why economic theory is essential to understanding the way this labour market works and to constructing coherent and effective policy. Finally, the book proposes policies to improve the efficiency of this market and to resolve the problems that currently plague it.
The Quality and Outcomes Framework has deeply divided UK general practitioners. I commend this book and applaud its determination to scrutinise every aspect of the Quality and Outcomes Framework - good and bad and in-between. - From the Foreword by Iona Heath General practice in the UK faces transformation following the introduction of the Quality & Outcomes Framework (QOF), a pay-for-performance scheme unprecedented in the NHS, and the most comprehensive scheme of its kind in the world. Champions claim the QOF advances the quality of primary care; detractors fear the end of general practice as we know it. The introduction of the QOF provides a unique opportunity for research, analysis and reflection. This book is the first comprehensive analysis of the impact of the QOF, examining the claims and counter-claims in depth through the experience of those delivering QOF, comparisons with other countries, and analysis of the wealth of research evidence emerging. Assessments of the true impact of QOF will influence the development of health services in the UK and beyond. This book is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the future of general practice and primary care, including health professionals, trainers, students, MRCGP candidates and researchers, managers, and policy-makers and shapers.
This report considers how to make pay more market-facing in local areas for NHS Agenda for Change (AfC) staff and recommends market-facing pay to support recruitment and staff retention. The AfC system is perceived as fair and objective by all parties, supports stable industrial relations, and is viewed as compliant with equal pay principles. Analysis does not provide firm evidence for further investment in additional market -facing pay in the NHS at this time and further development of AfC is needed to meet the challenges and cost pressures in the NHS. AfC is considered the appropriate vehicle through which to develop market-facing pay as it already has positive features for it. The Review Body therefore specifically recommends a fundamental review of high cost area supplements, appropriate use of local recruitment and retention premia, and regular review of AfC, including its flexibilities, with any necessary negotiations brought to a conclusion at a reasonable pace
In 2001, the newly established Learning and Skills Council (the Council) took over a programme of capital works in the further education sector, to renew an estate that was too large, with much of it in poor condition and no longer fit for modern educational purposes. By March 2008, a total of £4.2 billion of projects had been approved 'in detail', including grant support from the Council of £1.7 billion, and about half of the estate had been renewed. Since April 2008, there has been a very serious failure in the management of the programme. It approved 'in principle' 79 colleges' projects, which required nearly £2.7 billion of Council funding more than it could afford. Before the current problems arose, the programme had achieved some successes, enabling the estate to be reduced in size, and the buildings are generally of good quality and are contributing to increased learner participation. The economic downturn could affect colleges' ability to fund projects by restricting their access to loan finance or their ability to sell surplus assets. The indebtedness of the sector is rising. The Council needs to monitor closely the financial health of some colleges, particularly those that have borrowings that exceed 40 per cent of their annual income. In 2010, the Council is expected to be dissolved and its functions taken over by the Skills Funding Agency and the Young People's Learning Agency. There needs to be clarity about responsibilities for the capital programme, and additional administrative burdens on colleges must be avoided.