Decision details

The Chair welcomed Jane Mamelock and Calum Pallister from Health Education England (HEE) to the meeting. The report presented set out responses to the Health Scrutiny's requests for information on:

1.  Inequity of funding for medical under-graduate and post-graduate training in Lancashire; and

2.  Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy workforce supply risks in Lancashire.

It was reported that inequity of funding was more of a result than a cause whereby funding followed NHS activity. If recruitment and training increased in an area then money to support the increase would follow. There were three main areas of resources for training:

·  Under-graduate doctors

·  Post-graduate doctors

·  Non-medical

It was explained that by comparison Lancashire did not have the educational establishments that Manchester and Liverpool had. However, the government had committed to expand the number of places available for training. It was reported that the criteria to obtain additional places suited those areas that were difficult to recruit to and could therefore lead to increased opportunities in areas such as Lancashire.

The Committee was informed that Health Education England (HEE) working with NHS England was investing in recruitment in primary care in difficult to recruit areas. A targeted enhanced recruitment scheme had been launched.

Members enquired about the work being done to attract medical students back to Lancashire who had left to train abroad. The Committee was informed that there were supporting housing and supporting schooling packages in place as well as NHS bursary incentives for students. In addition to this Health Education England had implemented the 'Earn, Learn and Return Scheme' to help fill staffing shortages.

Recruitment and retention was a key issue and the Committee asked what the attrition rate was for under-graduates. It was reported there was a strong under-graduate infrastructure in place and that the attrition rate was low at under-graduate level which implied that the right trainees were being recruited onto programme and that the training and education met expectations.  It was pointed out that percentage wise the attrition rate was small. It was reported that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) was responsible for this information. The Committee requested details of attrition rates for Lancashire.

On funding for under-graduate medical placements, Health Education England made sure the full rates were paid and all the money received went out to the placements. Health Education England was looking at the whole under-graduate training programme to ensure there was no surplus.

Members were informed that dental recruitment in the North was successful as resources were linked to the six dental schools in the North supporting a high quality of dental care.

Regarding Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, it was reported that Health Education England was no longer responsible for commissioning the numbers that went into training for these areas and individuals no longer received bursaries. Health Education England would continue to be responsible for ensuring the NHS had the workforce it needed. However, it could not unduly influence the market on education training.

It was reported that the numbers coming through training were satisfactory. However some concern was expressed on where people went after their training had been completed. In terms of nursing, the new bursary system had led to a reduction in mature students coming through. Members enquired if universities had anything in place to attract mature students. An alternative range of work programmes for nurses were being looked at nationally. It was the fundamental responsibility of the employers to work closely with their local Higher Education Institutions (HEI) to be clear about what jobs they could offer.

Resolved: That the Health Scrutiny Steering Group be asked to identify any further recommendations following the discussion from this meeting.