Pressure points

As noted in the introduction, each year we take a more detailed focus on specified ‘pressure points’ – significant workforce problems that have a clear national dimension, require national analysis and, most likely, demand nationally directed interventions. This year, we take the theme of attrition and retention in the workforce of the NHS in England, and look in detail at two aspects of the problem – trends in the stability of the workforce, and attrition of student nurses.

We first conducted a broad-based examination of the indicators of qualified staff retention and attrition, focusing on turnover and stability. In part, this was to assess trends in these indicators over the past year, but we also looked at variations in these measures across different trusts and regions.

We also looked at the trends and attrition in student nurses. The analysis of student nurses was undertaken against the backdrop of the change from the bursary to loan model of funding for student nurses in England (the other three UK countries retaining some form of a bursary-based funding model). The new loan model was first introduced in 2016/17, and despite initial claims that this would increase student-nurse numbers, the applications to pre-registration nursing courses in England dropped significantly. The actual first-year student nurse intake in 2017/18 was almost at the same as in 2015/16, the last year of the bursary model.

Retention in the NHS workforce

Against the backdrop of NHS staff shortages, improving retention has been cited as a method of achieving relatively quick improvements in staffing numbers (compared with training new staff), reducing vacancies, and improving staff stability. Retention, as measured by staff turnover (the percentage of staff leaving the NHS) has not improved, and in some cases deteriorated, in recent years. In addition, initial analysis in Rising Pressure highlighted that staff stability had also declined in recent years.

Turnover (the staff who leave) is only part of the picture, and examining stability indices (the staff who stay on) can give more insights. In this year’s report, we’ve devoted more attention to assessing trends in the stability of NHS staff.

Our analysis is based on an assessment of NHS trust-level staff stability indices. The stability index is a measure of the percentage of staff in a trust at the beginning of a year who remain in their role at the end of the year. Like all such measures, it has some limitations, but it provides an alternate measure to the more commonly used turnover rate, and can provide more of a focus on staff who stay rather than those who move.

NHS staff stability decreased substantially between 2010/11 and 2017/18. The median stability index in trusts has reduced from 89% to 85% over the period. In the past year, despite the policy focus of reducing reliance on temporary staffing, we find that stability rates have not improved and are broadly flat at around 85%.

Across the same period, there has also been a growing gap between the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ NHS trusts, as measured by stability rate. This can be seen in the range of the curves below, which show NHS trusts ordered by their stability index in 3 separate years – from the beginning, middle and end of the period (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Stability rates of NHS trusts in England 2010/11 to 2017/18

Source: Health Foundation analysis of NHS Digital data.

This variation can be seen even more strongly when broken down by region (Figure 17). The stability rate decreased in all regions between 2010/11 and 2017/18, but the scale of the decrease and the starting point varies. In 2017/18, the median stability index of trusts in the north-east was 89%, which made it the most ‘stable’ region that year. However, this stability rate was no better than that of the median region in 2010/11. The least ‘stable’ region, north-central and east London, had a stability index of 81% in 2017/18, meaning almost 1 in 5 staff left their post that year.

The stability rate is particularly low in areas of London, perhaps reflecting the fact that the workforce is younger, more international, and has higher career mobility, as well as the higher number of vacancies and use of temporary staff, and the fact that trusts are in close proximity, meaning it is easier for staff to move between them. This might be exacerbated by movement of EU staff.

Figure 17: Regional-level NHS trust stability-rate, 2010/11 and 2017/18

Source: Health Foundation analysis of NHS Digital data. Excludes doctors in training.

As noted above, the change in stability rate across the period varies widely by region, with a larger decline in north-central and east London than in Wessex, although some of this variation may be related to structural changes in local NHS trusts, such as mergers or the movement of services.

Stability also varied by the type of trust (Figure 18). Community trusts had the lowest average (median) stability at 79%, while ambulance trusts were the most stable (88%). Some of this will be due to the types of staff employed in each type of trust. There are four outliers (indicated by the circles on the Figure) which may be because of structural changes in these trusts, or just poor underlying stability. Even the least-stable acute or ambulance trust (indicated by the short horizontal line below the box) is more stable than the median stability of community trusts.

There is some evidence that this decline in stability and turnover can be slowed. Emerging evidence from NHS Improvement’s retention programme suggests that through data analysis, the engagement of the board and a focus on retention, trusts can improve their retention rates. This programme has been employed by 110 NHS trusts, and 71% of the first cohort have seen an improvement in their turnover rate. Overall, for the first cohort, the average turnover rate reduced by 1.6%. Because of the number of trusts in this cohort (and the recency of the programme) this is unlikely to have altered the national picture significantly so far, but it may do as the programme is rolled out further, as stated in The NHS Long Term Plan.

Figure 18: Difference in stability of NHS trusts by trust type, 2017/18


Source: Health Foundation analysis of NHS Digital data.

While it is still early days for the programme, and too soon for a conclusive evaluation, the evidence is promising and suggests that there is scope for improvement in this area. Often this is not the result of more policies and programmes, but rather of greater awareness and the sustained implementation of existing policies, possible career pathways or opportunities.

However, while work–life balance has increasingly been reported as a driving factor for people leaving the NHS – more than two and half times as many people citing it in 2018/19 than in 2011/12, an additional 11,000 people – the most common reason for leaving is still reported as ‘other/unknown’.

This is compounded by the fact that research evidence on the factors driving turnover and stability is limited. A recent systematic review of systematic reviews found that ‘the evidence is not as definitive as previously presented from individual reviews. Further research is required, of rigorous research design, whether quantitative or qualitative, particularly against the outcome of actual turnover as opposed to intention to leave’. However, it did identify nurse stress and dissatisfaction as important individual factors and managerial style and supervisory support as important organisational factors.

Student nurse attrition

Although acceptance rates into pre-registration nursing and midwifery courses are an important indicator of the potential future supply of nurses and midwives, attrition during training must also be considered. This point is made by the House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee in their 2018 report on the nursing workforce, where they said ‘we would like further assurance from Health Education England that attrition rates have been taken into account in future workforce projections. There is stark variation in the attrition rate for nursing degree courses. This must be closely monitored, and Health Education England and government must hold universities and NHS provider organisations to account for investigating and addressing the causes […] We want to see action to reduce variations in attrition rates between institutions and will follow this up in a year to ensure progress has been made in bringing low performers up to the level of the best.’8

In 2018, the Health Foundation collaborated with Nursing Standard to examine the rates of student nurse attrition, using Freedom of Information legislation to obtain data from universities offering pre-registration nurse and midwifery courses.

We obtained data from 58 of the 74 UK universities that offer nursing degrees. It showed that, of the 16,544 UK nursing students at these universities who started 3-year degrees due to finish in 2017, 4,027 left their courses early or suspended their studies, giving a UK-wide average attrition rate of 24%. (The attrition rate was similar for the less common 4-year nursing degree.) Previous studies carried out by Nursing Standard had similar findings. In 2008, the overall average reported attrition rate was 25%, in 2010 it was 28% and in 2017 it was 25%. The survey found that at the level of individual universities, the attrition rate ranged from as much as 50% to as little as 5%, although some extreme values may be due to differences between in how universities measure or interpret the numbers (Figure 19).

A similar picture is seen in midwifery, where the attrition rate is 21% but varies by provider – from as much as 42% to as little as 4%.

This analysis suggests there has been little change in overall national attrition rates in recent years, despite it being a policy concern. In 2015, the Department of Health instructed Health Education England to halve the ‘avoidable’ attrition rate (without indicating what the rate was). Health Education England subsequently set up a working group to examine the issue, and finally published its Reducing Pre-registration Attrition and Improving Retention (RePAIR) report in November 2018. The report covered the period of the bursary system coming to an end and the introduction of student loans in England.

The report used data from a sample of 16 universities for the years 2013/14 and 2014/15, and used a different method of analysing attrition than that used by the Nursing Standard survey. It reported an average dropout rate of 33.4%, with the highest rates in learning disability (39%) and mental health nursing (35%). In a survey of 3,447 student nurses, it found that clinical placement experiences, finances and academic pressures were the most commonly listed reasons why students considered leaving courses. Of the students surveyed, 63% said they would not have applied for their nursing degrees if they had had to pay their fees.

Figure 19: Student attrition rate during a 3-year nursing degree by provider,2014–2017

Source: Data obtained directly from universities via Freedom of Information requests.

The RePAIR report recommended:

  • the establishment of hardship funds to enable more prospective students to consider a career in health care
  • that higher education institutes should work more closely with health care providers to allocate placements, and to take steps to ensure that students are paid in an efficient and timely way
  • the establishment of ‘buddy’ schemes
  • more support for second-year students
  • greater clarity over students’ roles in practice by clearing up confusion about supernumerary status.

‡‡ We exclude doctors in training from this analysis because their training scheme involves rotation between trusts, but do include the small percentage of staff that change staff group within a trust in the year.

§§ Of providers with an intake of more than 20 students.

Previous Next