The Messenger review, which is expected to take four months, will focus on what is needed to improve performance and collaboration in the NHS and social care
“Conscious of the potential for ‘review fatigue’, we will do all we can to avoid adding to that pressure during both the engagement and the implementation phases of our work.” General Sir Gordon Messenger and Dame Linda Pollard, who are leading the review into NHS leadership
The Messenger review into NHS leadership, announced by Sajid Javid last month, will look into the incentives offered to senior leaders, according to the terms of reference published earlier this week.
The review will cover leadership and management in both the NHS and social care. The move to integrated care boards in April 2022, and the need for closer working between NHS organisations and local authorities, “provides an opportune moment to look at what more needs to be done to foster and replicate the best leadership and management, including in the most challenged areas,” the document says.
Among the issues the review will consider are:
It will also look at making sure training and support is in place for clinicians to take on management roles and at ways of driving up efficiency so that leaders have time to focus on “delivering for patients and care users”.
The terms of reference say that the review will report to the health and social care secretary after four months, and will be followed by a delivery plan “with clear timelines on implementing agreed recommendations”.
To coincide with the publication of the terms of reference, General Sir Gordon Messenger, who is leading the review, and Dame Linda Pollard, who is supporting him, wrote an open letter to NHS and social care staff. The letter outlines their plans to consult staff through site visits, workshops, personal interviews and “webinar-style outreach” with the aim of accessing “as many viewpoints and diverse communities as we can.”
The letter also says that the pair are mindful of the strain staff are working under, adding: “Conscious of the potential for ‘review fatigue’, we will do all we can to avoid adding to that pressure during both the engagement and the implementation phases of our work.”
Their approach would be shaped by three factors, they wrote: