Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Assessing the impact of a new health sector pay system upon NHS staff in England

By James Buchan and David Evans


Background: Pay and pay systems are a critical element in any health sector human resource\ud strategy. Changing a pay system can be one strategy to achieve or sustain organizational change.\ud This paper reports on the design and implementation of a completely new pay system in the\ud National Health Service (NHS) in England. 'Agenda for Change' constituted the largest-ever\ud attempt to introduce a new pay system in the UK public services, covering more than one million\ud staff. Its objectives were to improve the delivery of patient care as well as enhance staff\ud recruitment, retention and motivation, and to facilitate new ways of working.\ud Methods: This study was the first independent assessment of the impact of Agenda for Change at\ud a local and national level. The methods used in the research were a literature review; review of\ud 'grey' unpublished documentation provided by key stakeholders in the process; analysis of available\ud data; interviews with key national informants (representing government, employers and trade\ud unions), and case studies conducted with senior human resource managers in ten NHS hospitals in\ud England\ud Results: Most of the NHS trust managers interviewed were in favour of Agenda for Change,\ud believing it would assist in delivering improvements in patient care and staff experience. The main\ud benefits highlighted were: 'fairness', moving different staff groups on to harmonized conditions;\ud equal pay claim 'protection'; and scope to introduce new roles and working practices.\ud Conclusion: Agenda for Change took several years to design, and has only recently been\ud implemented. Its very scale and central importance to NHS costs and delivery of care argues for a\ud full assessment at an early stage so that lessons can be learned and any necessary changes made.\ud This paper highlights weaknesses in evaluation and limitations in progress. The absence of\ud systematically derived and applied impact indicators makes it difficult to assess impact and impact\ud variations. Similarly, the lack of any full and systematic evaluation constrained the overall potential\ud for Agenda for Change to deliver improvements to the NHS

Publisher: BioMed Central
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2005). Agenda for Change and Benefits Realization: A framework for developing thinking
  2. (2006). Assessing the New NHS Consultant Contract: A Something for Something Deal?
  3. (2007). Health: A Health Service of all the Talents: Developing the NHS workforce – consultation document on the review of workforce planning [
  4. (1999). Health: Agenda for Change – Modernising the NHS Pay System. Health Service Circular HSC
  5. (2004). Health: Agenda for Change – Review of experience in the early implementer sites
  6. (2002). Health: HR in the NHS Plan: More Staff Working Differently
  7. (1997). Health: The New NHS: Modern, dependable. doi
  8. (2007). Healthcare Commission: National survey of NHS staff'
  9. (2007). House of Commons Health Committee (2007): Workforce Planning: Fourth report of session 2006–07. HC 171-I (2006–07)
  10. (2006). House of Commons Health Committee: NHS Deficits: First report of session 2006–07.
  11. (2006). Impact of Agenda for Change: Results from a survey of RCN members working in the NHS/GP Practices Royal College of Nursing,
  12. (2007). Office: Pay Modernisation: A new contract for NHS consultants in England
  13. (2007). Our Future Health Secured? Kings Fund London;
  14. (2007). Poor KSF progress puts careers at risk'.
  15. Public sector wages squeeze looks set to continue to
  16. (2007). Realising the Benefits? Implementing Agenda for Change Kings Fund,
  17. (2007). Services: Pay in the Public Services
  18. (2007). The Knowledge and Skills Framework doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.