• Accelerating the return to near-normal levels of non-Covid health services, making full use of the capacity available in the ‘window of opportunity’ between now and winter.
• Preparation for winter demand pressures, alongside continuing vigilance in the light of further probable Covid spikes locally and possibly nationally.
• Doing the above in a way that takes account of lessons learned during the first Covid peak; locks in beneficial changes; and explicitly tackles fundamental challenges including: support for our staff, and action on inequalities and prevention.

As part of this Phase Three work, and following engagement and discussion, NHS Engagement and Improvement have published a more detailed 2020/21 People Plan,

In these trials, which have received the backing of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, NHS 111 is being used as a “triage point” enabling patients needing urgent treatment, but not facing medical emergencies, to book access to primary care, urgent treatment centres or same-day emergency “hot clinics” staffed by specialists.

Emergency patients just walking in, or those arriving via ambulance, will be treated, in theory, as per the current system. Similar models are used in Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands where they have high approval ratings. But these are vastly different healthcare systems with better resourced out of hospital services.

So, can the model work in the English NHS? It is critical to view efforts to introduce ‘call before you walk’ in the wider policy context. The move is part of a far wider radical overhaul of emergency care pathways broadly designed to address the dangerous overcrowding seen in EDs in recent years.

In addition, they have set out plans to get the significant transformation agenda for June 2020 cancer services back on track, as simply restoring to pre-COVID-19 levels and models of service is not sufficient to deliver the improved outcomes that patients in this country expect and deserve.

1. Keeping baseline services running.
2. Covid-protected environments.
3. Diagnosis and referrals.
4. Personalised care.
5. Clinical trials.
6. Supporting the vulnerable.
7. Preventing cancer.
8. Workforce.
9. Screening programmes.
10. Guidance.
11. Innovation.
12. Long-term ambitions.

In my work with colleagues from across health and social care to understand what phase three ‘recovery’ looks like in workforce and wellbeing terms, it is clear that both aspects are starting to get the focus they always should have had but maybe not in the way we would have expected. It has not been cries of ‘more’ staff or money that have been echoing through the corridors, but the cry for ‘different’ and the freedom to make decisions without the shackles of bureaucracy and hierarchy holding the tide of necessary change at bay.

In the past, workforce planning has had little shared meaning, and has often been more recruitment planning for a continuation of the same as opposed to thinking about what we need from our teams in terms of availability, skills, expectations, roles and the delivery of care designed around the person receiving it. Wellbeing seemed to be something that only HR considered if there was a staffing issue or high sickness, or even more cynically a poor outcome in survey results, resulting in lots of workshops, fabulous plans, but very little sustainable change.

In the initial stages of the pandemic, I worked with a number of acute teams to look at staffing in the short term to face the initial onslaught of COVID-19. This meant looking at variation and where we could adjust care levels safely, planning to deploy a moderated skill mix of staff, and working through the cost of plugging gaps in largely traditional models of care using temporary and volunteer staff, with the hope that the 20% sickness rate wasn’t breached too often leaving us exposed to the hazards of unblocked holes in the workforce. This was acknowledged as an unsustainable and haphazard way of providing care for both staff and patients, which after the ‘emergency’ phase results in burnout, higher sickness, increased turnover, and certainly lacks in the resilience required to continue to manage COVID-19, non-COVID urgent care, elective care and the wellbeing of staff and carers.

So, what do we need to do as we plan for recovery, or more precisely ‘post traumatic growth’? Despite an apparent increase in interest in joining the nursing profession since the start of the pandemic, the reported 40,000 gap in nursing numbers is not going to be closed overnight, so it seems that planning for different and capturing and capitalising on the innovation that has flourished in some areas is the only way forward.

How do we do this? As an example, let me turn your heads to colleagues in social care who have known for some time that their current state was unsustainable. This has been compounded by COVID-19 and the (inevitable) delayed recognition by government of the essential role of social care in protecting the NHS and some of our most vulnerable people. Therefore, they chose to do for some what is unthinkable – they took their nurses away from direct patient care.

In some of the teams I work with there was an expectation that they would have 50% of staff available to be deployed, and would have slower and more limited access to other services to support – including temporary staffing or volunteers. They collaborated swiftly both within and across organisations, changed models of care completely based on some of the data collated by Establishment Genie, and moved to a model of all registered nurses in a supernumerary supervisory role, providing support to staff in their own care home directly and also in other homes via ‘virtual’ collaboration, and using technology to connect, share, teach and learn ‘on the job’.

This of course questions the future role of the nurse in these homes but is also an example of how we all may need to re-think roles and responsibilities to meet the challenges of today and the future in order to keep the people in our care – patients, residents and staff – safe. As we begin to reorient, revise our goals and focus on moving beyond rather than on just ‘getting by’, it is important that we look at all settings of care so we can learn from excellence, build on the best, and support a faster response in the future if required. The response to COVID-19 for many has been an example of how a system succeeds in varying conditions; a ‘Safety-II’ approach where humans are the necessary resource for system flexibility and resilience.

We need to take the time to understand where things have gone right, to celebrate and acknowledge this, and then co-create a health and social care system that people want to work and be cared for in.

• Reducing elective waiting times from ‘18 months to 18 weeks’ was one of the English NHS' major achievements in the 2000s. In January 2020, before coronavirus (COVID-19) began to impact on the UK, more than one in six patients were waiting more than 18 weeks for routine treatment. To free up NHS capacity, non-urgent planned care was postponed for 3 months from 15 April 2020.
• Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, to meet the 18-week standard for newly referred patients and clear the backlog of patients who will have already waited longer than 18 weeks, the NHS would have needed to treat an additional 500,000 patients a year for the next 4 years. The pandemic is likely to make waiting lists grow further and the challenge will be even greater.
• At the end of April, the NHS in England was asked to begin a cautious programme to resume some of the routine services suspended in response to COVID-19. Returning the NHS to ‘normal’ is hugely important but poses significant challenges. For example, treating patients with enhanced infection control arrangements will reduce the volume of patients that can be treated relative to normal.
• For planned hospital care, this challenge has to be seen against a backdrop of growing waiting lists and waiting times. In January 2020, before large numbers of COVID-19 hospitalisations, a total of 4.4 million patients were on the waiting list – around 730,000 of whom had waited more than 18 weeks.
• The rates of spending growth, set out in the NHS Funding Bill in February 2020, will not be sufficient to cover the cost of meeting the 18-week standard by March 2024, even before any additional costs and demand arising from COVID-19. The Health Foundation estimates that spending growth would need to increase by a further £560m a year – assuming the NHS can prioritise patients to make the most effective use of available capacity.
• Without a radical intervention to increase capacity, it is unrealistic to expect the 18-week standard can be achieved by 2024 with current infrastructure and staffing levels. Meeting the 18-week standard would require hospitals to increase the number of patients they admit by an amount equivalent to 12% of all the patients admitted for planned care in 2017/18. This would be an unprecedented increase in activity.
• COVID-19 makes the challenge even greater. Over the coming years there will need to be long-term changes to how routine care is delivered, considerable effort at the front line and potentially an important role for the independent sector if the NHS is to return to a position of meeting the 18-week standard. But even with huge efforts, the reality is that longer waiting times for planned care are likely to be a feature of the NHS in England for several years at least.