…it will only go up if the NHS budget for an additional 18,500 nurses. There is nothing we have seen in the governments plan that budgets for this.
Once again from the original cite:
Thank you, that was extremely helpful. Having read that source, I think it is still possible that the 31,500 “newly recruited nurses” is on top the numbers currently expected to come through the education system. If that is the case, then the claim of “50,000 more” could still be true. But if not (i.e. if the stated budget is the total budget for all student nursing, not additional money on top of what is already being spent), then either the minister was mistaken about the figures or is deliberately attempting to misinform.
at *least *15, you could actually give me a list of the names of 20 “new” workers, i.e. 20 people working in the new organisation who weren’t working for you before, again, we run into a problem using “new”
Actually I’m not clear on what you mean by “real” and “theoretical” or why it matters to the end calculation, you seem to be suggesting an inability to count non-events which is true but I think irrelevant. As long as I can look at my attrition rate for this year and see it is 5 and not 10, that my trainees all came on stream, that my external recruitment was successful, that’s all I’m bothered about. Mission accomplished. I now have 115 rather than 100.
Certainly they can be sliced and diced and labelled in lots of different ways but I don’t think it is relevant because…as you rightly say
Which I would have no problem with. That is the important end point, I just don’t think your terminology would necessarily be any less open to pedantic challenge
Here’s a link to the BBC’s “more or less” podcast that also looks at this.
It explains it in much the same way that I have and they are happy that the 50,000 more nurses claim is not a problem, nor is the retention issue, but they then move the conversation on to discussing the practicalities of achieving. A far more productive use of time.
Of course the numbers in training matter. They do eventually come onstream, in a perfectly balanced system they will negate the numbers of nurses being lost in any given year. Say 30k qualified nurses start, 30k qualfied nurses leave. A net gain of zero.
If you train the same number next year you get another 30k nurses starting but if you make the job more attractive and only 20k leave you have a net gain of 10k.
If there are 50,000 new nurses in training right now and you had a 100% retention rate for the 50,000 who otherwise would leave…you absolutely would get to 330,000. You don’t lose as much as you thought, but you still gain the amount that planned for.
I’m struggling to explain it any clearer.
Assume you get paid the same amount every month, enough that your outgoings match your income.
There are two ways for you to have more money in your bank account at the end of the month, one is to get more going in, the other is to stop as much going out. The manifesto plan is to do a bit of both, reduce the outgoings and increase the income. The combined net effect of that is a 50,000 increase overall.
Tell me, straight question. Why do you think the NHS has tens of thousands of nurses training at any one time? What do you think happens to them?
Well, aquarter of them drop out, for a start.
But I’m enjoying the desperate conflation of “more than there is now” and “more than there would have been if some hadn’t been lost” argument. Pray continue.
I hope you aren’t suggesting that’s my conflation though?
Personally I feel this is thread is drifting away from the election and how it was conducted toward policies and how to interpret wording.
Although there is a loose connection - debatable perhaps - between promises and propaganda, the number of nurses now starts to tie into the Queens speech and what that might imply, and this is all about the program of either law-making and or policy.
Maybe the time has come to discuss these sorts of interpretations alongside with the stated policies and any differences or consequences in another thread?
The election is over and we move to governance.
I detect a slight hint of diversion in here as well
I have started another thread, maybe it will have legs
I’m confused about why we think “the Conservatives won the election despite misleading claims about nurse staffing” is important, but “the Conservatives won the election even though their leader hid in a fridge” is not.
It’s curious whether the OP is still out on a ledge.
I guess that this link might be a way to go given that this thread seems to have drifted
Just to be sure - please tell me this is a joke, I’d be happy to learn that on first reading I was thoroughly whooshed.
He hid in a fridge. Boris Johnson 'hides in a fridge' to avoid Piers Morgan interview | Boris Johnson | The Guardian
That includes a photo of him in the fridge.
…this is an assertion, not evidence. We both know the system isn’t perfectly balanced. Brexit has already substantially decreased the pool of available workers and Brexit isn’t even law yet. The system isn’t balanced. The system is approaching chaos. With Brexit, changes to immigration looming, increased fears of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the assumption that retention of those 18,500 nurses would lead to an increase of 18,500 nurses (over the current baseline) is an outrageous assumption to make and there is no evidence to support that this is what would happen.
But the target isn’t for 100% retention. Its for 18,500 nurses. Is that 100% retention, or 50% retention, or 25% retention? 50,000 “more jobs” at anything less than 100% retention won’t get you to 330,000. The maths doesn’t work. Its based on assumptions that haven’t been made public.
We don’t know the current retention rate, we don’t know the forecast retention rate. We don’t know what is flowing into the system and we don’t know what is flowing out of the system. We’ve just been given an arbitrary target number that will be retained. You aren’t guaranteed an net increase of 50,000 over the current baseline. If you want 50,000 more nurses then that needs to be the target but that isn’t what the target is. We are missing the third variable. The maths doesn’t work.
The same as what would happen to nurses that are working full time. Some nurses finish their training and go on to be employed by the NHS. Some will drop out early into their studies, some will drop out late. Some will get employed by the NHS and drop out soon after due to the very pressures on nurses that are making them drop out of the profession.
You started the tangent. This is a diversion of your own making.
BB, the whole policy is assertion, that’s the point. You are challenging the feasability of the policy and you are free to do so but the policy, as asserted, adds up. In theory it works. The sums check out, the logic is sound. Listen to the experts on that podcast I linked to.
You’ve jumped straight to challenging whether it is likely to happen in practice. OK I guess, I mean that was what I said the interviewer should have been doing in the first place. That was my original complaint.
However he, like you, also failed to grasp the fairly basic maths that underlies the concept of the policy and so spun his wheels as he struggled and couldn’t comprehend how better retention of staff can contribute to an increase in numbers.
Whether you think it will happen is seperate from whether, in theory it could happen. You are unable to accept the latter, which is obviously true, and instead choose to focus on the former, fine, perhaps email your concerns to the BBC or someone else who wants to have that debate, but it ain’t my point.
…it only adds up if we know the missing variable: we don’t know that variable. In theory it doesn’t work.
But the sums don’t check out. You can’t make the sums check out. The logic isn’t sound. I listened to the first few minutes and I didn’t find the argument convincing at all.
Nope. The figures don’t add up. You can’t get to 330,000. Not without making assumptions that we can’t make without the missing variables.
Retention doesn’t directly contribute to an increase in numbers. Retention attempts to maintain the status quo. It is simply disingenuous to include retention numbers when you talk about adding more nurses to the workforce because those nurses are already part of the workforce. We don’t know if nurses will stay because of the retention policy or because of a decision completely unrelated to the retention policy: we just know they have stayed.
The number that is relevant is the replacement number of nurses for those that do leave. That number isn’t accounted for. You are assuming that number will bring that total 18,500 more than the baseline we are at now: that’s the only way we can get the 50,000 more nurses. But why are you assuming that?
I don’t need to address my concerns to the BBC. If you didn’t want to debate this then perhaps you shouldn’t have bought it up.
If you can’t wrap your head around this simple fact then you are never going to get it.
Without any policy change the NHS is currently set up to train n1 number of nurses to replace n2 number that typically leave each year. That keeps the numbers level.
If you introduce a policy that makes n2 smaller whilst keeping n1 the same, THE NUMBERS OF NURSES IN THE NHS INCREASES.
There is nothing remotely magical or difficult about that. I’d go further. It is the best and most efficient place to start. If you increase the number of completely new positions without looking at improving retention you are an idiot.
The details of how that improved retention works are up for debate, it may not work as well as you intend, it may work better and the resulting figures will inform future recruitment policy. (If you could continue training exactly the same number of nurses as now but get all the increases just from retaining more, that would be the best result of all.)
The assumption is that the govenrment has considered what a realistic improvement to the retention rate would be and factored that into a calculation of what additional new recruitment is needed on top of that to bring it up to a projected 330,000.
None of it is an absolute certainty, I doubt that the figures will pan out in reality but the logic is sound.
…we aren’t talking about a general formula here. We’ve been given specific numbers. We’ve been given a number: the number of nurses that will be retained, which we will call n3, and that number is 18,500.
n1 (the number of nurses trained to replace n2) isn’t the number we need to know: the number we need to know is n4, the number of nurses hired to replace the nurses that typically leave, not the number of nurses that are trained. The assumption that n4 will be kept at the same level is not one that is explicitly set by the policy, but even if we assume that it would be kept at the same level we run into a big problem here. To hit 50,000 more nurses than the baseline (280,000) to bring us to the target (330,000) n4 has to be a number that firstly brings us back to the baseline, then adds another 18,500 to that baseline.
But we don’t know what n4 is. But in order for the statement “50,000 more nurses” to be true we know you are going to have to be hiring substantially more than 50,000 nurses unless retention levels are set to 100%.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with improving retention.
But there is something wrong with conflating retention with adding more nurses.
They are two different metrics, measured in two completely different ways and conflating those two are disingenuous and misleading.
The number that is training is a different number to those that actually get employed.
LOL.
Of course the numbers aren’t gonna pan out. They literally can’t pan out for all the reasons laid out in this thread.