A report for the Council for Work and Health | June 2026

About the Summit

The Work Foundation and Lancaster University convened their annual Work and Health Summit in London on 23 June 2026, bringing together employers, trade unions, policy makers, researchers and health professionals. The half day event, was presented in two chapters, part 1, ‘Sustaining Momentum on Healthier Working Lives’ and part 2 ‘Delivering Healthy, Sustainable Work’, featuring keynote interviews with Sir Charlie Mayfield and Professor Dame Carol Black, panel discussions with voices from the TUC, Federation of Small Businesses, BT, Mind and Jaguar Land Rover, and new research from the Work Foundation and Professor Stavroula Leka.

The Work Foundation’s latest research released on the same day, called Unequal Support: Employer views on Workforce Health in 2026, showed that health related economic inactivity, while stabilising, remains close to record levels. Health-related exits have fallen from one in five in 2024 to 15 per cent in 2025 but economic inactivity due to ill health remains close to record levels. A striking ‘confidence–action gap’ was identified: while 80–85 per cent of employers rate themselves as well-equipped to support employee health, only 39 per cent provide occupational health access, 44 per cent offer line manager training, and just 42 per cent provide paid time off for medical appointments. The gap is widest for smaller employers and those with older, lower-income or ethnic minority-majority workforces.

Sir Charlie Mayfield: The Receiving Environment Must Be Ready

Sir Charlie Mayfield, whose ‘Keeping People Working’ review now underpins the government’s Vanguard programme, argued that getting someone into work is only half the challenge. The workplace they arrive in, its culture, relationships and structures, must be genuinely ready to support them. When it is not, the cost compounds: returning someone to work after a second exit is, he said, “an order of magnitude harder” than the first.

He was direct about the failure of lacking early intervention and employees with no contact from their employer for months. What is needed instead is a structured return-to-work process involving employer, employee and a health professional beginning at day one, not month three. He talked about how line management must be professionalised, not treated as an add-on to a technical role. Managers should not face difficult conversations unsupported and he continues to bring in the theme of rehumanising the employer-employee relationship. He closed with keeping people in and returning them to work is not just a problem to manage, it is one of the biggest untapped economic opportunities available to the UK. Even moving one per cent of the 35 million working population to fuller participation, he argued, would equate to around 230,000 additional workers; the size of a major city, without requiring immigration reform, infrastructure investment or waiting for the next generation.

Professor Dame Carol Black: Honesty About What Has — and Has Not — Changed

Dame Carol Black, whose pioneering review of working-age health was published in 2008, was candid in her interview: “The structural problems I identified are still with us.” Employer engagement with health and wellbeing has grown but largely because it has not depended on political will to sustain it. The system-level changes the country needs have not followed.

Her interview was interesting and to hear her speak so honestly as she reflected on her intentions with the fit note; to replace the sick note with something capturing what people can do, not what they cannot and for it to start the conversation. The gap between intention and reality persists. The system still defaults to defining people by limitation rather than capacity. She contrasted the UK’s “wonderful but disconnected initiatives” with the Scandinavian model, which we can’t forget it took over twenty years to get to its beacon status today, built on shared accountability between employers, government and employees. The UK’s problem, she argued, is not a lack of ideas: it is “a lack of determination to implement” what has already been recommended.

My personal reflections for our members

The overall message from the summit was one of urgency. The evidence base is strong, the policy vehicles are in place, and employer willingness is growing. What is needed now is sustained, coordinated action, with a sharper focus on those currently under-served. It was genuinely reassuring to hear that many small employers are already performing well in this space, often precisely because of their scale, the closeness of their relationships, and the human flexibility that larger organisations can struggle to replicate.

And yet, listening across all the sessions, I found myself noticing two significant gaps in the conversation. I offer them here not as criticism of what was an excellent and substantive summit, but as observations I believe our membership is well placed to speak to.

Where was the employee in all of this?

The conversations throughout focused largely on what employers need to do and what policy makers need to prioritise. All of that is necessary but I noticed something missing: the employee themselves.

We heard a great deal about improving the ‘receiving environment’ and rightly so. But what about preparing the person who is returning? For many people coming back from long-term absence, whether it’s a new diagnosis or challenges managing a chronic illness, something more has happened to them beyond the clinical treatments. There has been an identity shift, the “Who am I now, with this condition? What will returning to work look like, and how will it affect my confidence, my sense of purpose, my place within my team?”

Confidence is a real and often underestimated barrier. The person returning to work may be asking themselves whether they can still do what they did before, whether they are still competent, still capable, still the colleague their team remembers. Then there is connection: the relationships with managers and colleagues that have changed, perhaps frayed, during a period of absence, and that will need to be carefully and actively rebuilt.

Equipping employees with the self-awareness to understand how their needs may have shifted, and how they can adapt and contribute in a new way, is central to preventing what Sir Charlie Mayfield called ‘the second exit.’ A well-supported receiving environment and a well-prepared returning employee are two sides of the same intervention. I would like to see this given far greater prominence in the wider work and health agenda.

What does a supportive workplace actually look like?

The second gap that struck me was this: in all the discussions about good work environments and the professionalisation of line management, I found myself asking, “have we actually defined what we mean? What does a supportive workplace look like in practice? And have we evolved our thinking sufficiently since the foundational work of Waddell and Burton on what constitutes ‘good work’?”

There is no shortage of initiatives, strategies and sector-specific programmes. Many of them are excellent. But there is a risk that the conversation still remains fragmented; a collection of individual efforts, each valuable in isolation, but not yet adding up to a clear, shared picture of what every employer, regardless of size or sector, should be aiming for and be capable of achieving.

I did leave wondering what a baseline standard or a definition of the ‘supportive work environment’ do we have already, one that is ambitious enough to be meaningful but accessible enough that it does not become the preserve of large organisations with dedicated resource and a good story to tell.

My observations here point to the same underlying question: are we being comprehensive enough in how we define the problem and who we include in the solution? The Council for Work and Health is well positioned to support our members and push for both, the employee’s experience of return, and the standard every employer should meet. I hope these reflections prompt thoughts and discussion among our membership.

Mandy Murphy, Deputy Chair for the Council for Work and Health.

Collaboration in Action: Building the Future of Vocational Rehabilitation Together

Conversations help strengthen professional collaboration and promote better work and health outcomes across the UK.

Across the UK, professionals working in vocational rehabilitation share a common ambition: helping people remain in, return to and thrive in work. While each profession brings its own expertise, the most effective outcomes are rarely achieved in isolation.

Recently, representatives from several professional organisations came together for one of our regular multidisciplinary collaboration meetings. These meetings, held every six weeks, provide an opportunity to share experiences, discuss developments across the sector and explore how we can work more effectively together for the benefit of the people and organisations we serve.

Although our professions differ, the conversations consistently return to a common theme: better collaboration leads to better outcomes.

Moving from Reaction to Prevention

One of the strongest themes to emerge from our latest discussion was the changing role of occupational health.

Historically, occupational health services have often been viewed as something to access once problems have already become established. Referrals frequently occur after prolonged sickness absence, when options are more limited and returning to work becomes increasingly complex.

However, there is growing recognition that occupational health has the potential to become something much more valuable: a prevention asset.

Early intervention, timely advice and proactive support can prevent many workplace health issues from escalating. This shift requires not only changes in organisational thinking, but also closer collaboration between employers, occupational health professionals and the wider multidisciplinary team.

Prevention should become the starting point, not the aspiration.

Multidisciplinary Working Must Be Visible

The conversation also highlighted an important distinction.

There is widespread agreement that multidisciplinary working improves outcomes. Yet genuine multidisciplinary practice is not always visible across conferences, professional events and wider sector discussions.

True collaboration is more than ensuring every profession has a seat in the room.

It means creating opportunities where different professions contribute equally, challenge one another constructively and demonstrate how their combined expertise supports individuals throughout their vocational rehabilitation journey.

Whether supporting someone living with cancer, persistent pain, neurological conditions or complex trauma, successful vocational rehabilitation depends upon coordinated expertise rather than parallel working.

Our professions are strongest when they work together.

Evidence Matters

Participants reflected positively on the importance of evidence-based practice across professional education and conferences.

As health and work continue to attract increasing public attention, maintaining scientific credibility has never been more important. High-quality research, robust evaluation and shared learning provide the foundation for effective practice and informed decision-making.

Innovation and collaboration should always be underpinned by evidence.

Influencing the Future Together

The discussion also looked ahead.

Rather than simply reflecting on recent events, attention turned towards how we can collectively influence future conferences, educational programmes and professional development opportunities.

Ideas included:

• showcasing genuinely multidisciplinary case studies;
• increasing visibility of Allied Health Professionals alongside occupational health physicians, nurses and psychologists;
• creating presentations that demonstrate integrated practice rather than individual professional perspectives; and
• continuing to share learning beyond conferences through webinars, blogs and collaborative resources.

These are practical steps that help move multidisciplinary working from theory into everyday practice.

Continuing the Conversation

The strength of these collaboration meetings lies not only in the expertise around the table but in the willingness of organisations to work collectively rather than competitively.

By bringing together different professional bodies, we create opportunities to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and identify shared priorities across vocational rehabilitation, occupational health and workplace health.

No single profession holds all the answers.

But together we can improve work and health outcomes for the individuals, employers and communities we support.

As our collaboration continues, we look forward to sharing further insights and working alongside colleagues across the sector to strengthen multidisciplinary practice and advance vocational rehabilitation for everyone.

Participating organisations

This collaborative initiative brings together representatives from organisations across vocational rehabilitation, occupational health and case management, including:

• RCOT
• iOH
• ACPOHE
• BABICM
• CMSUK
• Vocational Rehabilitation Association (VRA)

Together, these conversations help strengthen professional collaboration and promote better work and health outcomes across the UK.

A renewed wave of collaboration is taking shape across the work, health, and rehabilitation landscape, as leaders from physiotherapy, occupational therapy, vocational rehabilitation, and case management came together again to share updates and coordinate future efforts. The meeting highlighted a shared determination to strengthen professional visibility, influence national policy, and ensure that the right expertise is represented in conversations about work and health.

One of the most immediate developments comes from ACPOHE, where preparations are underway for a free interdisciplinary webinar on 15 June. The session will bring together physiotherapists, OTs, VR professionals, and an occupational health physician to explore how each profession approaches workplace health challenges. Using simple case studies, the panel aims to highlight the complementary strengths of each discipline and demonstrate how collaborative practice can improve outcomes. ACPOHE also confirmed that a new website will launch within weeks, offering clearer membership pathways, including associate and student membership options that have previously been difficult to navigate.

The Vocational Rehabilitation Association shared updates on its continued commitment to accessibility, including free membership for students and newly qualified professionals. The group discussed the importance of ensuring VR is represented in national conversations, particularly after a recent government-led cancer and work event failed to include VR, OH, or AHP voices. With the Keep Britain Working review now published, the group agreed that the sector is in a stronger position to advocate collectively for meaningful representation in future policy work.

RCOT’s involvement in government policy discussions was also highlighted, with its policy team well connected across Westminster. RCOT is set to play a major role at this year’s OT Show, where case management will feature prominently thanks to CMS UK’s growing involvement. This shift marks a welcome move toward more clinically relevant content at the event, which in previous years had leaned heavily toward equipment and exhibition stands.

Case management organisations, including CMS UK and BABICM, emphasised the importance of ensuring their profession is visible in both conference programming and policy discussions. With case management referenced throughout the Mayfield Review and increasingly recognised as a vital component of return-to-work support, the group agreed that future conferences, particularly the Health & Wellbeing at Work Conference, should reflect this. Encouragingly, ACPOHE and RCOT have already secured agreement to co-chair the MSK stream at the 2026 conference, giving clinicians early influence over programme design. The group intends to build on this momentum by pushing for a dedicated Vocational Rehabilitation stream and exploring how case management can be integrated into the programme.

A recurring theme throughout the meeting was the need for a unified voice in national policy. With occupational health provision becoming increasingly commercialised and concerns raised about algorithmic triage replacing clinical judgement, the group stressed the importance of safeguarding quality and ensuring that human expertise remains central to work and health support. There was strong interest in exploring the formation of an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to give the sector a more formal platform in Westminster. Early advice suggests that securing an MP sponsor will be essential, and several potential routes for engagement were identified.

Looking ahead, the organisations agreed to coordinate their efforts around upcoming opportunities, including conference submissions, government consultations, and sector-specific initiatives. A shared statement is being drafted to address the lack of VR, OH, and AHP representation at the recent cancer and work event, and a follow-up meeting will take place in the coming weeks to maintain momentum.

What emerged from the meeting was a clear sense of shared purpose. Across all professions represented, there is a growing recognition that collaboration is not only beneficial but essential. By working together, these organisations aim to strengthen their collective influence, improve the visibility of their professions, and ensure that the future of work and health is shaped by those with the expertise to make a real difference.

• VRA
• iOH
• RCOT
• ACPOHE
• CMSUK
• BABICM

Capacity, Capability and the Future of OH Nursing

Amanda Hinkley; Janet O’Neill; Major Elizabeth Browne

Occupational Health (OH) nursing is becoming more important than ever.  Amanda Hinkley, Head of OH at UKHSA and FOHN chair, is a member of the Chief Nursing Officer (Professor Jamie Waterall) public health nursing group.

Professor Jamie Waterall, leads the Chief Public Health Nurse Office, reporting to both the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) for England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), which forms part of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Working closely with the CNO for England, he is responsible for leading the public health nursing workforce, whilst also supporting the wider health and care workforce to move towards a prevention first system, through the prevention strategy (NHS England » NHS Prevention Programme). The Chief Public Health Nurse objectives align with areas that we in OH are keen to focus on i.e. prevention, health inequalities and workforce development and with the Future workplace Health and Wellbeing landscape

An opportunity arose to contribute to the CNO Public Health Nursing Group meeting. The aim being to raise awareness of the role of Occupational Health (OH) in Public Health Nursing in accordance with the CNO Nursing strategy. 3 areas Capacity , Capability and Future Delivery.

To read the full blog click BLOG- Capacity, Capability and the Future of OH Nursing

Diana Kloss is always an inspiration and a prompt for reflection. A few years ago we fell to chatting about the paradox of the employer’s duty to protect health, but the worker’s right to keep aspects of their health confidential. It’s a thought I keep returning to. In parallel, I have had ongoing debates about the one size fits all approach to health standards which is at  the heart of our health and safety regulatory systems.

Consideration of the differential impacts of workplace hazards on asthma sufferers and neurological disorders. Looking at a very large health data set  this week, it became apparent that to be effective in managing a healthy workplace there needs to some resolution.

The Department of Business and Trade has signalled probable changes in the determination of cost-benefit analyses in the context of workplace health.  Their direction is likely to directly impact on population groups with specific health conditions.

Should the threshold of workplace health protection be set in order to ensure adequate protection of a minority of the workforce, whether it be gender or ability of health susceptibility? Or should it be proportionate, even if that creates exclusion or higher risks to certain populations.

Of course, this is not an academic question. HSE statistical evidence and employment tribunal reports are consistent with the notion that workplaces turn a blind eye or are oblivious to setting standards to protect those who may be most at risk from workplace hazards. The relationship between workplace health standards and equality legislation is still not a clear or easy one. How much harder is it to then put into consideration undeclared illness and vulnerability?

To a certain extent this conundrum is hangover from a forgotten era. Once upon a time the State was the major employer, but also the provider of health support and of social services. The cost benefit analysis was whether the State put effort into preventing someone being made ill by the workplace or whether it was cheaper to pick up the consequences through the NHS and the social security system. Ultimately, the State was omniscient and omni-benevolent.

However, the world has changed. The employer is invariably not the State, has duties to protect, but still only so far as practicable and to the extent of proportionate cost. This creates a different dynamic from the original proposition. The right to a “healthy” working environment is now the only employment right that depends on how wealthy the employer is.

Theoretically, if more workers become ill, then corporation tax will increase and so there is more resource to cover the costs to benefits and the NHS. However, this mechanism does not exist. In reality, it is likely that the majority of the businesses that create workplace health risks are amongst the businesses who collectively underpay A336bn in corporation tax , equivalent to a potential additional 15% of the total cost of the NHS.

Britain’s postwar consensus started breaking down almost 50 years ago, but we act, as a country as if the State should foot the bill to fix the people that business may not be willing or able to prevent from falling into ill-health. This, even though the fiscal deal with business that was wrapped in to National Insurance or corporation tax has long become a fiction.

So what is the solution and how does this relate to Diana’s dilemma? The answer is, to my mind, going to come down to one of two outcomes. Leave it to market or reform regulation.

Our current trajectory leaves matters increasingly to the market. The Government is likely to continue to roll back statutory duties, rely more upon the benevolence of employers and hope that by being less fussy about work and health we will create more jobs, more profit and more benevolence. This pre-WWII model, reminiscent of early industrialisation, would have the employers setting the standards for their peers on protecting workplace health.

However, this will not happen in a vacuum. If regulatory standards hit an even lower tide, it opens up opportunities for the lawyers. Employers owe a duty of care to prevent employee health being harmed or worsened by the workplace. These are legal standards set through the Common Law. Addressing the Common Law – judge made law, based on longstanding general legal principles, encouraged lawmakers to create our current regulatory standards that we currently have.

If regulatory standards fall, the common law of negligence will still be there. And in the law of negligence, you take the claimant as you find them. If they have a “thin skull” then you should have anticipated and protected them. Just because you are not subject to prosecution, does not mean you can’t be sued successfully. In the context of a negligence claim, the fact that a vulnerable person exercised their right to keep their medical condition confidential may be immaterial. In such a context, Diana’s dilemma disappears.

The return of the common lawyers to the field of workplace health is already happening with gusto. A large law firm runs an exposure database to help potential clients diarise their hazard exposure levels. It’s not a question of if they launch a class action, but when, how much for and how often it is repeated. Another law firm recruits health exposure victims in the way US lawyers started to do in the 90s around “toxic torts” that forced corporations to part with billions. Law firms can turn on press outrage and Parliamentary meetings in a way I have never before seen in my legal career.

The trajectory of workplace health regulation leads us all towards last century’s boom days for Personal Injury Litigation. There will be winners and losers, but the victim – the worker – will always be the loser; as well as the NHS, the taxpayer and Society.

There is, of course, another way. We accept that the world is different from when we came up with this model, and learn the lesson I learnt in Environmental Law Regulation. The polluter pays principle was always hard in hard cases, but it made everything else pretty clear cut.

We can cut out the complications and move to a simple economic proposition. The employer has an absolute duty to prevent his workers from being made ill through work and if they do become ill, the employer (or their insurers) should pay for cost of the consequences.

This is neither a radical, new, or untrusted idea. In varied forms, it is found at the heart of systems in the United States and in also in the Scandinavian countries. It is clear and it is achievable.

The contract of employment exchanges skills, labour, control, loyalty, creativity and opportunity for pay and reward. No part of that can ethically ever also be contracting out longevity, freedom from pain, suffering or limits to human dignity. The sacrifice of those things are features of bondage, servitude and slavery, not of employment.

As health professionals, ethical practitioners or just decent human beings, we need to be clear about what the deal on workplace health really should be. It’s not politics, it’s economics. Either the employer pays or everyone  pays.

Time for Change: Kevin Bampton’s Call to Reform Occupational Health

At this year’s Ruth Alston Memorial Lecture, our board director, Kevin Bampton delivered a thought-provoking speech on the state of modern-day Occupational Health and Hygiene. He argued that, despite advancements in medicine and workplace safety, the UK faces challenges in establishing a comprehensive occupational health system that effectively prevents illness and injury.

He started off his lecture with this reflection:

“There is a country where the state provides and mandates that you have a health care worker within work teams. They provide free medicine and free prescription. They have a generous system of time off from work if you’re feeling ill. And they also have a really, really effective record keeping system. So which country do you think this is?” It was Ancient Egypt, 2500 years ago.

Drawing on various historical comparisons, Bampton highlighted how ancient Egyptian workers benefited from structured health provisions and yet, as he says, “3000 years later we are still scratching our heads about these things”. In contrast, modern occupational health practices in the UK have evolved alongside economic shifts, the introduction of the NHS who will pick up the ill and injured and ‘fix it’, privatisation, and regulatory changes, leading to a more fragmented approach.

He described the relationship between public health and workplace safety regulations, noting that greater alignment could support better health outcomes for workers. He also discussed how access to health data and early detection of occupational illnesses play a key role in improving workplace well-being.

Bampton shared examples of workplace health risks and the importance of ensuring that protective measures are in place to safeguard workers. He suggested that adopting aspects of the Finnish model—where employers have a legal duty to prevent workplace illness and facilitate early detection—could help strengthen occupational health frameworks in the UK. He made an interesting point about the lack of empowerment individuals have over their own health data and the disconnect this has to manage their health when they visit a GP for example.

His speech provided valuable insights into the historical, ‘what once was an effective occupational health model’ and the future alignment of occupational health, emphasising the need for continued focus on prevention, accountability (government and regulators included), and worker well-being. he ended with this statement: “whether we look at three thousand years BC or current 21st Century, it doesn’t matter, it’s time for change”.

This synopsis is written by Mandy Murphy, Board Director at Council for Work and Health

Blog by Abigail Hirshman, Co-chair, Mental Health Group, Council for Work and Health

A few weeks ago, I delivered some mental health training for managers. During the session I was asked what you should do when someone has a panic attack. I gave some pointers and also mentioned their mental health first aiders might be able to provide support. When a participant asked, ‘What is a mental health first aider?’ I nearly fell off my chair.

The person then said, ‘Oh, so in a mental health emergency we have to ask them for help?’ ‘Well, not exactly,’ I replied. ‘Oh, so they train others in mental health..?’ ‘Well, not exactly,’ I replied. Clearly my explanatory skills needed some work, however it struck me afterwards to wonder what the purpose of mental health first aid (MHFA) is, and what value it can bring to the workplace.

This is particularly topical, as the private members bill proposed by Dean Russell MP to make MHFA a legal requirement is approaching its second reading in parliament[i]. Whilst we must assume that Mr Russell is acting with the best intentions, his lack of consultation with industry experts is concerning, given that many of us view this proposal as misguided and reductive.

Myself and colleagues at the Council for Work and Health (CfWH) have supported the approach taken by three ex MHFA Board Members, Amy McKeown, James Brown and Robert Manson who have written to Mr Russell seeking a wider and much needed consultation [ii]. At the CfWH we have long debated the merits or otherwise of MHFA and concluded that there is a place for it in the in the workplace. However, we believe it is ill-advised to mandate an intervention, where the evidence of its effectiveness is so limited[iii]. There are also a number of other unintended consequences of this approach.

Firstly, it is a distraction; the cost of mental health problems is equivalent to around 5% of the UK’s GDP[iv], and those with a long-term mental health condition lose their jobs every year at around double the rate of those without a mental health condition[v]. To address this requires proper training for managers and leaders of the benefits to making practical and supportive adjustments at work to those who live day to day with a mental health condition.

Secondly, it removes any obligation to consider the wider risk and protective factors to mental health at work. The implication that mental health is a static state that works just fine until you have an ‘accident’ and need first aid suggests mental health is fixed rather than a dynamic and complex experience driven by our early experiences, our genetics and our current environment. In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO)[vi] published guidance highlighting the risks associated with mental health at work, none of which will be resolved by MHFA and nor should they be. MHFA  is not a preventive measure but like physical first aid is aimed at those in need of immediate help.

Thirdly, this proposal ignores the need for an informed debate on mental health and how the workplace can be both a cause and a cure. The Stevenson Famer report triggered a huge change in the way we think and talk about mental health at work. Whilst this has generally been positive, it is also clear to me that just because we talk about something more doesn’t mean we understand it more. Six years on from the report, I continue to hear the same old tropes and biases, none of which will be eliminated by mandating MHFA.

We are starting to learn from research, lived experience and expert insights what is effective. This potential bill has galvanised industry experts to collectively debate what government could mandate that would actually make a difference. Mental health is complex, there is no one cause or one solution. Mental health at work doesn’t just happen on a Thursday or on a # or because that lovely lady in accounts trained as a mental health first aider. It is about organisations taking a strategic, systemic and systematic approach that evolves and adapts in line with the changing workplace landscape.

Abigail Hirshman is Co-chair of the Mental Health Group at the Council for Work and Health and Director of Charlie Waller Workplace.

[i] First-Aid (Mental Health) Bill – Parliamentary Bills – UK Parliament

[ii] (2) Post | LinkedIn

[iii] RR1135 – Summary of the evidence on the effectiveness of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training in the workplace (hse.gov.uk)

[iv]  Mental health problems cost UK economy at least GBP 118 billion a year – new research | Mental Health Foundation

[v] Thriving at Work: a review of mental health and employers – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[vi] Mental health at work (who.int)

Welsh RCAP Group Workforce paper:  The Welsh health and care workforce at 75

RCP – The people who care

The findings of our three national surveys of UK university employees (conducted between 2008 and 2014) found that the overall level of work-related wellbeing was poor. Most of the psychosocial hazards included in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Management Standards framework increased over time, particularly job demands, control, role and relationships, and the extent of self-reported mental health problems also gave cause for concern. Earlier this year, we were commissioned by Education Support to revisit the wellbeing of university staff and identify their support needs.

Our sample comprised 2,046 academic and academic-related employees working in UK universities. As well as revisiting the HSE hazards and other key sources of strain, we also examined employees’ perceptions of the psychosocial safety climate of their institutions, mental health and work-life balance. Some key findings include:

• The psychosocial safety climate was typically perceived to be poor – more so than in studies of other organisations. More than three-quarters of the sample (78%) strongly disagreed or disagreed that their psychological health is considered as important as productivity.
• University employees continue to report lower wellbeing than average for all the HSE’s psychosocial hazard categories. Job demands, support from managers and colleagues, working relationships and role clarity were all identified as requiring urgent action.  The HSE framework recognises that job control can help employees manage the demands of their work, but this has also been steadily eroding among university staff over the years.
• The overall level of mental wellbeing found was considerably lower than population norms.Using a well-validated measure (the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale), less than one-third of respondents (29%) achieved scores indicating average mental health with more than half (53%) showing signs of probable depression. Moreover, many were showing signs of burnout, with 29% feeling emotionally drained from their work daily.
• The pandemic was generally thought to have intensified workload pressure with key difficulties including the challenges of working online, inflexible deadlines and managing students’ expectations and wellbeing.
• More than six respondents in ten (62%) reported regularly working over 40 hours a week and 22% at least 50 hours. Unsurprisingly, work-life balance was poor, with 36% indicating that they always, or almost always, neglect their personal needs due to work demands.
• Respondents who reported poorer wellbeing relating to job demands, control, support, relationships and role and who worked longer hours were at greater risk of poor mental health, burnout and work-life conflict.
• The support that was most commonly available to help employees manage their work demands tended to be at the individual level (e.g. stress management training and mental health first aid), whereas the initiatives considered to be most effective were at the organisational level (e.g. tackling stress at source, input into decision-making and feeling appreciated and respected).
• Common barriers to accessing support for wellbeing were lack of time due to a heavy workload and an inflexible schedule and little information on what was available.
• Seeking help for work-related stress and mental health can be stigmatised in UK universities More than half of the sample (59%) feared being seen as weak if they sought support for their wellbeing, with just over seven out of ten (71%) agreeing or strongly agreeing that it would harm their career.
• Although respondents generally considered counselling and coaching to be helpful in supporting their wellbeing, they expressed some concerns about limited availability and a lack of insight among practitioners into their work pressures.
• Respondents who reported being able to access a wider range of support initiatives tended to perceive a more positive psychosocial safety climate at their institution. They were also at lesser risk of mental health problems and burnout and had a better work-life balance.

In our report, we provide recommendations to improve the support available to university employees and ensure it is fit for purpose. These actions will help institutions meet the challenges of the COVID-19 outbreak and ‘build back better’ in terms of a healthy and satisfied workforce. The full report can be found here.

Professor Gail Kinman, CWH Director and Visiting Professor of Occupational Health Psychology, Birkbeck University of London and Dr. Siobhan Wray, Associate Professor, University of Lincoln.

New factsheets to help organisations and individuals meet the challenges of Covid-19

Professor Gail Kinman

CWH Director and Visiting Professor of Occupational Health Psychology, Birkbeck University of London

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the way that we live, and how and where we work. For many people it has been a time of setbacks and loss as businesses close, health is threatened, redundancy looms, and the effects of inequalities become ever more apparent. Although the economy seems to be recovering and we are gradually moving towards some degree of ‘normality’, the post-pandemic future is uncertain and little is yet known about its long-term implications for individuals and organisations. It is therefore crucial to support organisations and individuals in maintaining health and wellbeing during the pandemic and beyond and help policy makers meet the challenges they are facing.

Early in 2021, Public Health England commissioned the Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM) to organise a series of webinars and linked factsheets on the theme of ‘work, worklessness and wellbeing’. The project aimed to provide organisations and employees with practical guidance on key issues of concern during the pandemic. The project was guided by a steering group comprising leading experts and representatives from employers’ organisations. Along with the SOM, I organised these webinars and wrote the factsheets with input from the speakers and feedback from relevant bodies.

The webinars included high-profile speakers from organisations such as MIND, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Business in the Community, the British Psychological Society, the Health and Safety Executive, the Centre for Better Ageing and the Carnegie Trust. There were also presentations from leading academics in the field of work and wellbeing, business leaders and trade unions and professional associations. They were very well attended and feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Recordings of the webinars can be found here.

The factsheets have just been launched – each is informed by a review of research and provides a range of evidence-informed resources and tools to help organisations and individuals ‘build back better’.  The topics addressed by the factsheets are shown below with links to download them:

1. Supporting businesses to build back better: The benefits of age diversity
2. Supporting your approach to workplace diversity and inclusion
3. Creating better quality work and workplaces
4. Managing stress, burnout and fatigue in health and social care
5. Supporting workplace mental health and wellbeing during COVID-19 and beyond
6. Developing a COVID-19 secure mental health and wellbeing strategy
7. Managing change – restructuring, redundancy, and homeworking

Please disseminate the factsheets via your networks.