phd by publication kent

• Search PhD Projects & Programmes
• PhDs by Subject
• PhDs by Institution
• Latest PhDs

University of Kent

University of Kent – a top 20 research university Kent, a top 20 research university, provides a dynamic and challenging academic environment informed by an international perspective and collaboration with top ranked universities around the world. Our £11 million postgraduate scholarship fund allows us to support excellence and we have an enviable record for graduate employment. Kent is known as ‘the UK’s European university’ with campuses in the UK and specialist postgraduate centres in Brussels, Paris, Athens and Rome where studies are underpinned by the specialist resources of each location. In addition to these centres, we have a large number of academic partnerships across Europe, Asia and the United States; some of our programmes offer dual UK and European qualifications, as well as jointly supervised PhD awards. The University is ranked 17th in the UK for research intensity, we have world-leading research in all subjects and 97% of our research is deemed to be of international quality as shown by the Research Excellence Framework 2014. The QAA (2015) recognised postgraduate study at Kent as having ‘a vibrant and interdisciplinary academic community’. The Graduate School supports all postgraduate students and offers Researcher Development and other skills training as well as organising the annual Research Festival and encouraging student-led initiatives for social and academic events. Postgraduate programmes We offer a range of research opportunities including External PhDs across the arts and humanities, social sciences, medical studies, and science and technology. We are active partners in the AHRC Consortium for the Humanities and the Arts South-East England (CHASE), the ESRC South-East Network for Social Sciences (SeNSS), the Eastern Academic Research Consortium (Eastern ARC) and the ARIES NERC Doctoral Training Partnership. The Kent website includes tools to search for programmes and potential supervisors – you can use the search function on the home page or the tabs on www’kent.ac.uk/pg. £11m Postgraduate Scholarship Fund There are a variety of financial support opportunities for postgraduate students including: • Funding from UK Research Councils • ESRC, AHRC, BBSRC, EPSRC, NERC and STFC • Graduate Teaching Assistantships • University Taught and Research Scholarships • Subject and location specific awards • Excellence in Sport and Music scholarships • Philanthropic awards • International Student Scholarships Superb locations The University of Kent has exceptional study locations: the UK campuses in Canterbury, Medway and Tonbridge, plus specialist postgraduate centres in Brussels, Paris, Athens and Rome. Canterbury and Medway have quick and easy road and high speed rail access to London as well as mainland Europe, via Eurostar. The facilities of all our locations are available to all our students, no matter where they are based; research students often use them to host conferences and colloquia. Canterbury -Over 50 subjects for study and research at a beautiful, cosmopolitan campus looking over the historic City -Medway Professionally focused programmes delivered at a stunning waterfront location with state-of-the art facilities -Athens Heritage Management, combining archaeology and business, studied in one of the world's most ancient cities -Brussels Advanced international studies in the political capital of Europe taught by academics and practitioners -Paris Postgraduate humanities enhanced by cultural immersion in the capital of European culture -Rome The study of the ancient world in this centre of classical antiquity www.kent.ac.uk/pg

By Department/School/Faculty

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Lynn Nygaard

Kristin solli, june 29th, 2023, what exactly is a phd by publication.

0 comments | 55 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

A PhD by publication, that is, a PhD submitted in the form of a dossier of published papers with varying degrees of connective writing, has become an increasingly common thesis format. However, as Lynn P. Nygaard and Kristin Solli point out, there are significant variations in how these pieces are put together. Outlining these differences and providing a checklist, they show the key questions students should ask when looking to undertake this kind of PhD.

The PhD by publication is becoming an increasingly popular choice in the social sciences , especially in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Scandinavia, but also in other countries. This kind of thesis is no longer “new” in the places where it has taken hold, yet it remains an unsettled genre with striking variations across geographical regions, disciplines, and institutions. For example, there is no agreement on what to call it (thesis by publication? article-based thesis? compilation thesis? something else?) – let alone  on what it should look like. Institutional guidelines that explain to the doctoral candidates (as well as those supervising or evaluating the thesis) are not always easy to find. If you feel like you are left on your own to figure it out, you are not alone. Investigating “what is expected of me?” will always be time well spent. But first you need to know what questions to ask.

Sandwich or two-part model?

A PhD by publication consists of a series of standalone articles plus some sort of narrative (also called a synthesis, integrative chapter , or many, many other things). But it is not always obvious how these two parts fit together. For example, in the “sandwich model”, which is common in Australia and New Zealand, the articles are treated like chapters and are “sandwiched” between two narrative chapters (normally an introduction and a conclusion) that attempt to tie the various threads together. Considerable effort is made by doctoral candidates to ensure flow between the chapters (including perhaps adding additional narrative text between the article chapters) so that it reads like a book (that is, a traditional monograph). This model is perhaps more attractive in contexts where there is still a certain amount of skepticism to the PhD by publication.

In Scandinavia, where the “article-based thesis” is the default format in most social science contexts, we use a two-part model. Here, the narrative is separate from the articles, and written with its own beginning, middle, and end. The articles themselves appear as a distinct second part of the thesis – similar to appendices in the sense that they are separate both from the first part and from each other. While the candidate must demonstrate strong thematic connections between the articles, there is no expectation that the text itself should read as a coherent whole.

What kinds of articles?

The publications are the backbone of the thesis by publication, and there are huge differences between institutions when it comes to what constitutes a “publication” and how many are required. The key idea is that the publication should be aimed at academics (who are not on your committee). This naturally rules out blogposts and coursework (so, no, you cannot submit the literature review you produced in one of your classes unless you have reworked it completely to be ready for submission to a journal). Journal articles are the gold standard here, but book chapters and conference proceedings are also permissible in some contexts.

But how many do you need? Do they all have to be published? Are co-authored articles acceptable? What happens if an article gets rejected? These are all reasonable questions , and the answers to these questions depend very much on where you are located.

In Scandinavia, three solo-authored articles can be considered a basic point of departure. If you include co-authored papers (whether they are co-authored with a supervisor or someone else), then sometimes more papers are expected, or there are restrictions on the number of co-authors.

In many places, there is an expectation that most (and sometimes all) papers need to be published before thesis submission. In other contexts, it is common for only one (or even none) to be published or accepted for publication. Instead, the papers must be deemed “publishable” as judged by your supervisor or PhD program. In effect, it is possible in some places to submit a thesis by publication without any published papers. When the emphasis is on “of publishable quality” and not the status of being published, a rejection by a journal is of little consequence because the paper will simply be classified as “not yet published”.

Expectations for the narrative?

Apart from the basic distinction between the sandwich model and the two-part model, there are huge local variations in what is expected for the narrative. In some departments, we have noticed a move towards minimalism, where the articles are supposed to speak for themselves, and the narrative is becoming shorter and shorter, (5000-7000 words in some PhD programs in Economics for example). On average, however, about 20,000-25,000 words seems to be expected.

Sometimes, the narrative is little more than a cover letter that summarises the articles. In our work, we argue that the narrative should go beyond summarising your articles and draw out the main themes at a higher level of abstraction, aiming to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. This is because the narrative serves to demonstrate various aspects of your “doctorateness” that may not be visible in the articles written for an audience that is not interested in your candidacy. It allows you to show how your different articles are connected to form a coherent whole, how (if you have co-authored with others) you were able to exercise good judgment and independent thinking, and how (if you have drawn from different disciplines) the work you have produced reflects the values of the academic community that will be granting your degree. And if you have faced specific challenges in your doctoral journey – for example, having to change your research design half-way through because the pandemic made in-person interviews impossible – the narrative allows you to show how you adapted to your situation.

Your unique situation

Writing a good thesis by publication means thinking through how to best meet the expectations of your department given the unique thesis you have written: the breadth and depth of the articles, how much you co-authored or drew from other disciplines, and the changes in your project you might have made throughout the journey.

Fig.1: What are the requirements for a thesis by publication in my PhD program? A checklist

The specific guidelines, or tacit expectations, in your institutions are not random. They usually reflect the way research is normally carried out and evaluated in that context. However, when you are new to an institution, it might not always be easy to know how to find out what “normal” is because these practices and ideas are taken for granted by those who are already insiders in that context. If your department does not provide you with clear guidelines, we hope this blogpost has given you an idea about the kinds of things you should ask about, we have also included the checklist above, which you can use as a starting point. The more you understand what is expected (and why) in the institution you are part of, the more likely you will be able to write a successful thesis by publication.

Lynn Nygaard and Kristin Solli are the authors of Strategies for writing a thesis by publication in the social sciences and humanities .

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.  Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: LSE Impact Blog via Canva. 

About the author

Lynn P. Nygaard, EdD, special advisor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), provides writing support to doctoral students and researchers. She holds seminars on writing for publication, supervising the writing process, and writing the narrative for the PhD by publication not only in Norway, but also internationally.

Kristin Solli, PhD, Associate Professor at the Unit for English for Academic Purposes at OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway, teaches academic writing to students and researchers. Her research interests include doctoral education, doctoral writing, multilingual writing practices, and time and temporality in educational practices.

Related Posts

A PhD by publication is a great way to build your academic profile, but be mindful of its challenges

August 20th, 2018.

Why don’t we account for luck in research careers?

April 18th, 2023.

Making your part-time doctorate work for you

June 12th, 2023.

When publishing becomes the sole focus of PhD programmes academia suffers

December 5th, 2022.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

• Flashes Safe Seven
• FlashLine Login
• Faculty & Staff Phone Directory
• Emeriti or Retiree
• All Departments
• Maps & Directions

• Building Guide
• Departments
• Directions & Parking
• Employment Opportunities
• Faculty & Staff
• Give to University Libraries
• Library Instructional Spaces
• Mission & Vision
• Newsletters
• Circulation
• Course Reserves / Core Textbooks
• Equipment for Checkout
• Interlibrary Loan
• Library Instruction
• Library Tutorials
• My Library Account
• Open Access Kent State
• Research Support Services
• Statistical Consulting
• Student Multimedia Studio
• Citation Tools
• Databases A-to-Z
• Databases By Subject
• Digital Collections
• Discovery@Kent State
• Government Information
• Journal Finder
• Library Guides
• Connect from Off-Campus
• Subject Librarians Directory
• Suggestions/Feedback
• Writing Commons
• Academic Integrity
• Jobs for Students
• Meet with a Librarian
• Study Spaces
• University Libraries Student Scholarship
• Academic Integrity (Plagiarism)
• Affordable Course Materials
• Copyright Services
• Digital Scholarship Series
• Suggest a Purchase

Library Locations at the Kent Campus

• Architecture Library
• Fashion Library
• Map Library
• Performing Arts Library
• Special Collections and Archives

Regional Campus Libraries

• East Liverpool
• College of Podiatric Medicine

• Electronic Theses & Dissertations

Electronic Theses & Dissertations

You are here.

• UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
• DEPARTMENTS

ETDs at Kent State University 

An electronic thesis or dissertation (ETD) is an Open Access digital version of a thesis or dissertation. Traditionally, the library has been responsible for cataloging, archiving, and making available theses and dissertations in print format and has assumed the same role for ETDs within the framework of the OhioLINK ETD Center  .

This web site is the institutional guide for preparation and submission of ETDs, providing answers to frequently asked questions and contact information.

• OhioLINK ETD Center Submission Site  - Create an account and submit your ETD by clicking on "New User? Register Here!" and selecting the "Submitter/Student Account" option
• KSU ETD Contacts  - Each College has its own ETD Contact or "Gatekeeper"
• General Guidelines for Preparation
• Accessible PDF Instructions
• Delays of Publication (Embargoes)
• Honors Papers
• Responding To A Returned ETD
• Registering Your Copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office
• Creative Commons Licensing
• Purchasing Bound Printed Copies
• Frequently Asked Questions

Cindy Kristof Copyright & Scholarly Communication Librarian Office Hours by Appointment ckristof [at] kent.edu

• KSU ETD Contacts
• Guidelines for Preparation
• Returned ETD
• Registering your Copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office
• Bound Printed Copies
• What is Fair Use?

Street Address

Mailing address, quick links.

• How Are We Doing?
• Student Jobs

Information

• Accessibility
• Emergency Information
• For Our Alumni
• For the Media
• Jobs & Employment
• Life at KSU
• Privacy Statement
• Technology Support
• Website Feedback

Popular Searches

• KentOne card
• Pay accommodation fees
• Download a student status letter
• Financial support
• Ask Nexus (student helpdesk)

Your studies

• School guides in Moodle
• Study support

Library and IT

• Skills for Academic Success
• Timetabling

Student life

• Life at Kent
• Eating out and nightlife
• Postgrad life
• Celebrating diversity
• Sustainability
• Kent Students’ Union
• Health and wellbeing
• Finance and funding
• Student Administration
• Report and Support
• International student support
• Cost of living support
• Career support
• Employability Points
• Opportunities
• Life after uni

Deposit your thesis

Copyright, Open Access, Kar and your thesis - a presentation by librarian Roz Bass

Summary guide

Preparing your document.

Before you deposit, you must make sure your document is in the  correct format .

You may need to  redact  parts of your thesis if it:

• contains other people's work  which you don't have the right to use
• contains sensitive or confidential material .

If you have data, diagrams, maps, multimedia items or any other documents you can't incorporate into the body of your thesis, check how to  prepare and deposit this material .

Decisions you need to make

You need to decide:

• if you need to deposit a  redacted version  of your thesis as well as the full version.
• if you wish to  apply an embargo  because you are planning to publish it
• if your thesis cannot be publicly available because it  contains  a lot of  sensitive or confidential material . At an early stage, before publication, you should discuss with your supervisor whether there is potential commercial application to your work or any patentable subject matter. Please contact [email protected] for advice as early as possible.
• which  Creative Commons licence  to apply to your thesis.

How to deposit your thesis into KAR

You deposit your thesis through your school’s Moodle page. Your school will send you the link and you will need to  follow these steps .

Watch this Depositing your thesis to KAR via Moodle video

If you've been awarded your PhD on the basis of published works, you can still  record it on KAR .

How having your thesis in KAR affects you

KAR  is Kent’s Open Access institutional archive, through which your thesis is publicly available and downloadable.

• This has many benefits to you, as listed below.
• You will keep ownership of the  copyright of your work .
• It will not affect your  ability to publish  if you choose the right access option.

Document list

Benefits of KAR

When your thesis is available in the  Kent Academic Repository  (KAR) the full text will be available over the internet. This is called  Open Access .

Open Access refers to online material that is free at the point of access, so anyone can read it without needing to pay. Open Access material allows readers to use and share information easily; it has clear re-use rights which tell others what they are allowed to do with it.

Making your thesis Open Access:

• increases the visibility and reach of your research. Your thesis will appear prominently in search engine results and authoritative online sources. These include the  British Library’s EThOS service  and  DART-Europe E-theses Portal
• means your research is more likely to be read and cited
• provides a stable, long-term URL you can use to promote your work. You can refer potential collaborators, employers and grant providers to your research, and track any citations
• allows long-term preservation of your research and ensures it is accessible
• protects you against plagiarism, as a reference copy is publicly available
• means you can see how often your thesis is downloaded
• satisfies the Open Access requirements of funding bodies, such as RCUK.

PhD based on published works

If you are undertaking a PhD by published works you must meet with the IS Research Support team. Contact  [email protected]  to make an appointment.

If you have been awarded your  PhD on the basis of a collection of published works rather than a single thesis , you can still record the basis of the award on the  Kent Academic Repository (KAR) .

Your KAR deposit has to include these three elements:

• a record in KAR for each of the publications that form the basis of the award -  see part 4 of the regulations
• the summary or supporting statement you had to create for the PhD -  see part 6 of the regulations
• a bibliographic list of the publications.

In KAR, each publication record will link to the thesis record and vice versa. See an  example record in KAR .

Record of the publications in KAR

• You can use the  Assisted Deposit Service  to send us your journal articles or conference proceedings to upload to KAR for you. It will help you meet publisher requirements and upload the correct version of your work.
• To find out more about journal publisher copyright policies, use  SherpaRomeo .
• Each record will have its own URL in KAR (which will look a bit like this:  https://kar.kent.ac.uk/69412/ ). Add these URLs to the bibliographic list.

Summary or supporting statement

• If you have included published versions of your work (as they appear on the publisher’s website with the publisher’s typesetting, fonts, formatting logo, etc) that have not been made available under  a Creative Commons licence , you should  redact this material from your thesis  and deposit the full version and a redacted version.
• Upload the supporting statement to KAR via Moodle like  any other thesis deposit . Select the 'PhD based on published works' option in the  Thesis/Dissertation Type  section.
• It should be accompanied by the bibliographic list of the publications that form the main evidence for the award. 

Bibliographic list

• Lay this out in the  correct referencing style for your discipline . 
• Add the URL of the KAR record for the publication to each entry.  
• Upload this document to KAR via Moodle like  any other thesis deposit , either as a separate document or as part of the summary or supporting statement.

If you are depositing a record for this type of PhD, contact  [email protected] .

• KAR and Open Access: email  [email protected]
• Copyright: email  [email protected]
• Choosing the best deposit option for your thesis: speak to your supervisor and the Submission Review Panel

More IT and Library services

• Home »
• Advice »
• Studying For A PhD

find your perfect postgrad program Search our Database of 30,000 Courses

Phd by publication.

Many universities have recently introduced the ‘PhD by Publication’ method of obtaining a PhD, instead of the more conventional thesis. The availability of this option will vary from place to place, some won’t offer it at all, whilst others may only offer it to staff who have yet to achieve a PhD.

So just how is a PhD by publication awarded? Well, it varies from country to country – for instance, Scandinavian students will more commonly obtain a PhD this way, so let’s look specifically at getting a PhD by publication in the UK.

PhD by Publication in the UK

This method of gaining a PhD is relatively new, (even though getting published is important) and hence, the requirements may vary from place to place. Generally, though, instead of submitting a thesis written specifically during three/four years study with the university, you are instead required to submit a number of published papers.

In general, this method of gaining a PhD is not offered as an alternative to the standard way – it is not aimed at those starting on an academic career. It is usually offered to academics already in their career who have not yet completed a PhD. This is usually confirmed by the fact that many universities require you either to be staff, or to have graduated at least seven years ago to be eligible.

So just what sort of publications can be considered?

#2 Book Chapters Chapters written for anthologies or collections of essays are suited to being used in your portfolio. However, they are often not sufficient to stand alone, so you would need other works too.

#3 Research Papers Research papers that have been published in journals or other peer-reviewed sources.

#4 Technical Reports More for the science side of things – published peer reviewed technical reports are eligible.

#5 Other Published Media Other published media can be included – things such as scholarly editions of books, or architectural plans – but this will be on a case-by-case basis.

Often, with shorter works, it is necessary to submit multiple pieces – often five to seven – to complete an entire portfolio. However, in some cases, less may be acceptable. Each of the works featured in the portfolio must be linked in some manner, and they must be consistent in theme. Unrelated works will not be allowed to count towards a PhD by publication.

In addition to the portfolio of published work, the candidate is expected to have a supporting statement. This statement must critically discuss the works featured in the portfolio – discussing how they fit together, discussing their methodologies and explaining why they chose these methods, and how they feel it worked. In addition, they must point out their original contribution to scholarship – this is one of the most vital parts of getting a PhD, regardless of method.

You may be asking yourself what role the university would play other than examining the portfolio. In this case, a supervisor will assist with the portfolio, assessing whether the works submitted are cohesive, consistent and most importantly, of a high enough standard to be entered. They will also help with the supporting statement – making sure all vital information is included.

After this stage, there will be an oral examination. This will be similar to a viva , and should be prepared for as such. You will have to be prepared to defend any points made in the supporting statement. Depending on how long ago works were published (there is a time limit on when they are eligible) you may want to re-read them and ensure you are familiar both with your own work and the source material it draws on. In one sense, this may be more difficult than getting a PhD in the conventional manner as the work is not as recent, but it may also be easier in that it has already been peer reviewed and you will be aware of many possible questions and arguments.

Getting a PhD in this manner is not without difficulty, no matter how good the publications - while the submission of the portfolio and the oral examination may seem alright, the problem arises with finding a suitable place to apply. Due to the restrictions – some universities only opening to staff or alumni – you will be limited in options, and from those options, it may be more difficult than normal to find a supervisor. That said, for those who have been in academia for a while without a PhD, it may be well worth your time – take a look at our blog on the pros and cons of a PhD .

Related articles

PhD Funding In The UK

Doing A PhD: Why It’s Important To Publish

The Alphabet Of PhD Study

Common PhD Myths

Postgrad Solutions Study Bursaries

Exclusive bursaries Open day alerts Funding advice Application tips Latest PG news

Complete Our Destination Survey

Take 2 minutes to complete our Destination Survey for the chance to win a Postgrad Study Bursary worth £2,000.

All we need to know is:

• Your university
• Your PG course

PhD by Publication

The PhD by Publication is an accelerated, part-time PhD award intended for those who have carried out extensive research over a significant period of time and have a number of publications arising from this work which have already been published in high-quality journals.

This should not be confused with the standard PhD (3-4 years full-time).

If you have any questions about the PhD by Publication degree which are not answered on this page, please email us  or call us .

• PhD by Publication – Explained
• Types of Doctorates

Introduction

Obtaining a PhD by publication is relatively uncommon in higher education. It can, however, be especially useful for established researchers who have published work but don’t yet have a PhD. This article gives information on exactly what a PhD by publication is, how it works and what the advantages and disadvantages are. Read on to learn more.

What is a PhD by Publication?

A PhD by publication is a doctoral degree awarded to a person who has several peer-reviewed publications that have been put together as separate ‘chapters’, contributing to a unified research theme within a specific field.

This format typically consists of a significant introductory chapter, up to 10,000 words, similar to a traditional thesis, followed by around five published research papers and a final chapter to bring things to a conclusion. Although these papers will be separate bodies of work, it’s important that they’re connected along one research theme.

This route to PhD can be attractive to researchers that have published a lot in their academic career but have not followed the traditional PhD path. It helps them gain recognition for their contributions to their research field and recognition that the work they have done has been of a doctoral level without having to write a separate PhD thesis.

A PhD by publication is awarded following a  viva (also known as an oral examination) with examiners, similar to the process of a traditional PhD.

What are the Advantages?

A clear advantage of a PhD by publication is that you’re submitting a portfolio of work that has already gone through extensive peer review. This means that by the time you come to defend your work at a viva, it’s much easier. For example, the questions your examiners may ask you could be very similar to the questions you were asked by your reviewers during your paper publication phase and so you will already have prepared suitable responses to these.

Another advantage of this route is that it’s a much quicker way of obtaining a PhD degree; traditional PhD programmes take between three and four years from registration to completion whereas you can get a PhD by publication within one year of registration with the University, assuming that you enrol on this degree having already published all the papers that you will include in your portfolio of work. The shorter duration means that you often will only have to pay for one year of University fees, meaning that this approach is cheaper than a traditional method. It’s often possible that you can work any part-time job alongside preparing your publication portfolio for viva examination submission.

What are the Disadvantages?

Not all research fields or questions are suitable for a PhD by publication. In some cases, it may be necessary to design, set up and run a new PhD project in the field, recording the generation of further data. Additionally, it may be difficult to expand upon your previous publications and explore different research ideas as you put together your portfolio of papers. As this approach is a relatively uncommon way to get a PhD, some institutions may be unfamiliar or not set up to facilitate a PhD by publication. While the final viva examination will be the same as that in a traditional PhD, there is always the risk that some examiners may not see this publication route as being a ‘real’ PhD.

You’re also likely to miss out on some other aspects of PhD life by going down the publication route, including opportunities to teach or supervise undergraduate students and the experience of working within a research lab alongside other PhD students.

How Long Does a PhD by Publication Take?

You should expect a PhD by publication to take six months to one year to obtain from your point of registration with a UK University. This is on the basis that you have already published work for all the material that you would plan to include within your PhD portfolio, or that it is currently going through the review process. This approach is shorter than pursuing a traditional PhD, which typically takes between three and four years as a full-time student.

What is the Application Process?

You apply using the standard process required by the university to enrol, in the same way as the traditional route of a PhD. In addition, however, you will be asked to submit a portfolio of your prior publication track record and a supporting statement outlining the work of these existing publications, detailing how they tell a coherent story with the relevant subject area you’re applying to. You won’t need to submit a formal PhD research proposal as most, if not all, of the research should already have been completed.

Do you have Supervision?

Yes, in the same way that a traditional PhD student will have a primary supervisor to oversee your project. The role of the supervisor will be to help you establish a clear narrative for the theme you’re putting together of your publications, offering critical appraisal where necessary.

He or she will advise you on how to structure the introductory and concluding bodies of work that are required before you submit your portfolio for external examination and viva. Remember that the supervisor is there to advise and not tell you how to structure your dissertation; this is the same for any research student doing a standard PhD.

With this researcher-supervisor relationship, your options may be open in terms of whether you need to be based at the University in person or if you choose to work remotely as a distance learning student, communicating with your supervisor over email or video calls.

How does Assessment Work?

The body of work that you submit will be read and assessed by two examiners that are experts within your subject area of research. This will be followed by the viva examination with the two examiners, in line with the conventional PhD approach. To be awarded this research degree you will need to demonstrate that your work has made an original contribution to furthering the subject knowledge within your field.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

How Much Does It Cost?

As a PhD by publication usually takes about a year to complete, most universities typically charge a fee equivalent to one year of PhD study. The exact amount will vary depending on the University, but usually, the tuition fee will be around  £4,500  for one year for UK and EU students, and considerably more if you are an international student. It’s challenging to secure funding for these types of PhD degrees and you will find that you’re unlikely to be eligible for financial support from research councils or other routes of funding.

What Kind of Publications Can I use in my Portfolio?

Universities will have specific guidance about factors such as how many publications you can include in your portfolio and there may be some restrictions on when they should have been published. Typically, you will include 5 publications in your submission to your PhD examiners, but this can in some circumstances be as low as 3 or 4 or as high as 10 separate papers. Most often these will be in the form of  journal articles accepted by peer reviewed journals but can also include published book chapters, scientific or technical reports that have been published or other forms of publication that have gone through a level of peer review.

A PhD by publication is a good way for you to graduate with a doctorate if you enter this research programme having already published several academic papers on a single research theme. You need to demonstrate that you have made a significant contribution to your field through previous research. At this stage it is likely to be the cheapest and fastest route to gaining a PhD. However, applicants should be mindful when they apply that it may be challenging to secure funding for this.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• UTHealth Houston

Marina Zhukova, PhD

• Assistant Professor
• Education & Training

Areas of Interest

Publications.

Marina Zhukova, PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Faillace Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.

Dr. Zhukova has over 10 years of clinical experience working with children and adolescents with complex psychiatric conditions, trauma, and chronic illness. She has worked in a range of settings including psychiatric and medical hospitals, academic medical centers, community health, juvenile detention, and outpatient specialty clinics. She is particularly interested in high-acuity psychiatric and pediatric care. In 2023, Dr. Zhukova received the Excellence in Inpatient Care Award from UTHealth Science Center in Houston. Dr. Zhukova specializes in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), trauma-focused therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), motivational interviewing, and substance use counseling.

Her research interests include early adversity and the impact of the environment on mental health. Dr. Zhukova has conducted international research on the effects of institutionalization in orphanages, with funding from international foundations, including the Society for Research in Child Development and Russian Science Foundation. She has authored and contributed to over 30 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Zhukova bridges clinical practice and research, focusing on intergenerational trauma and equipping caregivers with tools to support their children.

Dr. Zhukova is actively involved in the supervision and training of pre-doctoral psychology interns, practicum students, and psychiatry residents at The Dunn Behavioral Sciences Center.

Clinical Interests

• Child and adolescent mental health
• Coping with chronic illness
• Parent-child relationships

Research Interests

• Impact of adversity
• Institutionalization

Visit the PubMed profile page

• McGovern Medical School Facebook Page
• McGovern Medical School X Page
• McGovern Medical School Instagram Page
• McGovern Medical School YouTube Page
• McGovern Medical School LinkedIn Page
• Medical School IT (MSIT)
• Campus Carry
• Emergency Info
• How to report sexual misconduct
• University Website Policies

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Department of Health & Social Care

Government response to ‘Reading the signals: maternity and neonatal services in East Kent - the report of the independent investigation’

Updated 3 August 2023

Applies to England

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/maternity-and-neonatal-services-in-east-kent-report-government-response/5ef6ff7c-4b1e-45c3-8721-5dd2f4384b12

Ministerial foreword

All women expect that they and their baby will be cared for safely and, where tragedies happen, that they will be well supported and treated with compassion. This was not the case at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, and many women, their babies and families were failed in their time of need. Dr Bill Kirkup CBE was commissioned to undertake an independent investigation into the trust’s maternity and neonatal services to understand what happened and why, and, crucially, to identify lessons to prevent it happening again.

I would like to thank the families who have engaged with the investigation. Your willingness to share your experiences, even though those experiences are harrowing for many of you, will support the learning and improvement that can be brought about through these recommendations. I am deeply sorry for the pain you have experienced, and I hope the action being taken because of your participation with the investigations provides some comfort for you in this process.

I would also like to thank Dr Bill Kirkup and his whole team for their committed and compassionate approach throughout the investigation. Your insightful and considered report will enable the healthcare system to reflect and improve on the provision of care and you have provided an important platform to give a voice to so many families.

I take this investigation and all elements of maternity safety incredibly seriously. I understand the immeasurable impact that poor care and adverse outcomes can have on a family, and I remain committed to supporting trusts to deliver safe, compassionate care.

While maternity services must always seek to learn and improve, I would like to recognise the dedication and commitment of the vast majority of the maternity workforce. I know that everyone who joins the healthcare profession sets out to deliver safe and compassionate care, and I would like to acknowledge the effort and ability of so many maternity professionals who work tirelessly for the women and babies they serve. This should be the case for all women and babies.

It is important to acknowledge that we know that care is not always delivered to our high standards. Inquiries into care at Morecambe Bay and Shrewsbury and Telford (see the final Ockenden report ) have highlighted terrible examples of unacceptable levels of care.

There has been a significant and sustained effort to improve maternity safety and deliver quality and personalised care across England. NHS England’s Maternity Transformation Programme was established in 2016 to implement a vision for safer and more personalised care across England. The programme was initially guided by Better births , published in 2016, which set out a 5 year forward view for improving outcomes of maternity services.

The NHS Long Term Plan , published in 2019, set out to make the NHS one of the best places in the world to give birth by offering mothers and babies better support and safer care. Most recently, this has been set out in NHS England’s 3 year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services , which looks to guide the service towards being safer, more personalised, and more equitable for women, babies and families.

It is clear that a vision for safe and personalised care has remained at the forefront of maternity services. We have been deeply saddened by the findings about the care in East Kent. We believe that the work that has been done to improve maternity care provides a foundation for us to build on and improve.

This response will set out the next steps on the important themes and aims within the recommendations that are another key component towards achieving safe and personalised care for everyone.

Maria Caulfield MP Minister for Mental Health and the Women’s Health Strategy

Introduction

In February 2020, NHS England commissioned Dr Bill Kirkup CBE to undertake an independent review into maternity and neonatal services at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, referred to in this document as ‘the trust’, following concerns about the quality and outcomes of care.

Dr Kirkup’s Maternity and neonatal services in East Kent: ‘Reading the signals’ report was published in October 2022. This will be referred to as ‘the report’. The report detailed the poor maternity care that over 200 families received at the trust between 2009 and 2020. The report concluded that the trust failed to provide safe care and treatment which resulted in avoidable harm for mothers and babies, causing tragedy and distress that no family should have to experience.

The report demonstrated that the NHS needs to be better at identifying poorly performing units, at giving care with compassion and kindness, at teamworking with a common purpose and at responding to challenge with honesty. The government takes all of the findings and areas of concerns extremely seriously and is committed to continuing its work to ensure that all trusts provide safe and compassionate care at the standard that is expected.

Within his ‘Reading the signals’ report, Dr Kirkup made 5 recommendations for the healthcare system. In March 2023, the government provided an interim response to the report via a written ministerial statement . This fuller response details how we are implementing the recommendations.

To make sure that the recommendations are delivered in a way that results in meaningful change, since the report was published the Department of Health and Social Care ( DHSC ) and NHS England ( NHSE ) have together conducted an extensive series of discussions with a wide range of stakeholders across the healthcare system and voluntary sector, ranging from patient groups to regulators including the:

• Care Quality Commission ( CQC )
• General Medical Council ( GMC )
• Nursing and Midwifery Council ( NMC )
• royal colleges
• Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch ( HSIB ) maternity investigations programme
• NHS Employers
• NHS Providers
• National Guardian’s Office
• British Medical Association ( BMA )
• Health and Wellbeing Alliance ( HW Alliance )

Professional bodies, regulators and organisations have highlighted the important work already in train to support healthcare professionals to deliver safe and quality care, but also have remained open and committed to learning and improvement across the system. We will continue to build on their expertise and experience throughout the implementation process.

We also heard directly from some of the families affected by the poor care received in East Kent about their experiences and the changes they think are needed to improve services, at a meeting with the Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy, Maria Caulfield MP. What they told us has informed this response and will continue to inform the implementation of Dr Kirkup’s recommendations.

One important part of the learning and action taken from the recent maternity investigations is the 3 year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services published in March 2023 by NHSE , referred to from here on as the 3 year delivery plan. It sets out how NHSE , integrated care systems and integrated care boards, and NHS trusts will make maternity and neonatal care safer, more personalised, and more equitable for women, babies and families, and will play a valuable supporting role in the implementation of the East Kent recommendations. There are key areas of overlap and opportunities for alignment, including on compassion, culture and safety.

Following an extensive period of engagement, NHSE have asked services to concentrate on 4 themes:

• listening to and working with women and families, with compassion
• growing, retaining and supporting our workforce
• developing and sustaining a culture of safety, learning and support
• standards and structures that underpin safer, more personalised and more equitable care

But the recommendations of the report sit wider than the maternity and neonatal system. The work being done in response to the report will help to engage and integrate wider system partners to jointly address the challenges and issues identified in a co-ordinated and systematic way to help ensure sustained improvement.

What we are doing

There are lots of things already planned or being implemented across maternity and neonatal care nationally that will help to address the issues and challenges highlighted in ‘Reading the signals’, in addition to the new 3 year delivery plan. Further details about those are provided in this response as well as the new things we are doing, as we believe they all play a valuable role in creating the conditions needed for improvements to be successful and sustainable.

Focusing on the new action we are taking, at a national level, the Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy will chair a newly created maternity and neonatal care national oversight group. This will bring together the key people from the NHS and other organisations, including the CQC and HSIB , to look across maternity and neonatal improvement programmes and the implementation of recommendations from this and other maternity reviews, to ensure a joined-up and effective approach.

At a local level in East Kent, the Minister for Mental Health and Women’s Health Strategy will convene a local forum bringing together the NHS, CQC and MPs whose constituents have been affected to share information and updates.

While good progress has already been made to deliver some of the recommendations, others are longer term in nature. Dr Kirkup has therefore been appointed to support other government action in relation to recommendations 2 and 3.

Recommendation 1

The prompt establishment of a task force with appropriate membership to drive the introduction of valid maternity and neonatal outcome measures capable of differentiating signals among noise to display significant trends and outliers, for mandatory national use.

Both the system and trusts themselves need to be able to identify early when a maternity service is vulnerable and at risk of providing unsafe care to patients, so that action can be taken.

To enable that, NHSE has established a Reading the Signals Data Co-ordination Group, referred to in this report as the co-ordination group, who will bring together a series of data projects which aim to make sure the right data will be used in the right way to identify and support trusts who may be vulnerable to bad outcomes. This will employ multiple approaches to make sure that all information that may signal concern is captured. This data will provide more timely and sensitive information to inform the data and intelligence to be shared through the perinatal quality surveillance model . Within the NHS Standard Contract there now exists an obligation on providers to comply with the requirements set out in this model.

An important component of this work has been the establishment of the Maternity and Neonatal Outcomes Group formed by NHSE . This is acting as a task force in response to the recommendation in the East Kent report. Chaired by Dr Edile Murdoch, this group has met and is progressing work towards the identification of these outcome measures that will, as this recommendation states, differentiate signals among noise to display significant trends and outliers. The work will lead to a draft clinical outcome measurement tool that can be used as an early prompt, early surveillance or early screening system in the autumn.

The co-ordination group will bring in other work - for example, a new patient reported experience measure (PREM) that is being developed via the National Institute of Health Research ( NIHR ). This will be created by 2025 and provide trusts with information on their delivery of quality care. In addition, NHSE and the government are considering the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in analysis of maternity safety data to explore new insights on potential safety signals, for informing the perinatal quality surveillance model.

While the identification of these signals is key, it needs to be underpinned by action and support.

The NHSE perinatal quality surveillance model is a framework or model that supports the early identification of quality and safety concerns within services, enabling targeted support from the most appropriate level of the system. The model recognises that the trust board is ultimately responsible for the quality and safety of the care provided but also allows the local maternity and neonatal system ( LMNS ) to escalate concerns to regional groups, who in turn report to the National Perinatal Safety Surveillance and Concerns Group ( NPSSCG ). This group oversees entry into the Maternity Safety Support Programme, which was formed in 2018 and provides hand-on, bespoke support by NHSE to improve struggling services. The NPSSCG contains a broad membership including the HSIB , NHS Resolution ( NHSR ), Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audit and Confidential Enquiries (MBRRACE) and the CQC .

Recommendation 2

Recommendation 2i

Those responsible for undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing clinical education be commissioned to report on how compassionate care can best be embedded into practice and sustained through lifelong learning.

The government sees compassionate care as a cornerstone of safe and personalised care. This should be reflected in all encounters, from individual contacts during routine clinical care to supporting women and families following serious incidents and bereavement. We have heard from some of the families affected of how the lack of compassion shown towards them while they were dealing with terrible circumstances made their experiences even more difficult. A failure to listen to women and their families was a key theme in what they told us, with many feeling they had to fight to be heard. This is not only distressing for those having to fight, but it also jeopardises patient safety as Dr Kirkup’s report illustrates.

Dr Kirkup states that compassionate care must be embedded in continuous professional development for everyone at every stage of their career, stating explicitly that this should not simply be learned in the early academic years only to be forgotten in professional life. He sees compassionate care lying at the heart of clinical practice and is explicit about the role of senior role models in fostering this culture.

As part of initial work in response to this independent investigation, the government was supported by the HW Alliance in a mini survey of some of their members. This has allowed us to understand what members see compassionate care as being, and ways this can be facilitated through specific training. These responses are also clear that the workforce needs to be supported with adequate resources for compassionate care to be feasible.

Following discussions with families and patient representatives and drawing on previous safety reviews, we are explicit that the expectation of compassionate care cannot be confined to those providing face to face clinical care. This expectation is on all those who support women and families, whether through the complaints processes, safety investigations, regulatory enforcement or legal process.

DHSC will lead the response to this recommendation in a central coordination role involving relevant national partners, closely supported by NHSE .

We recognise that this recommendation needs to address very different groups of individuals working in often complex systems and are keen to open up this work to healthcare organisations, professional regulators and professional bodies who want to contribute and see changes in this space. This will also include unregulated healthcare professions and the Care Certificate .

Therefore, through commissions to relevant bodies including royal colleges, NHSE , NHSR , regulators and research groups, those involved in complaints and litigation processes, conversations with clinicians and patient representatives and drawing on existing work, DHSC will co-ordinate activity to:

Map how compassionate care is currently being taught at all levels and across professions, whether this be formally or as part of in practice training. This will allow us to understand where there are gaps that may be preventing this being embedded and forming a sustained compassionate culture, but also where it is working well.

Share good practice and examples of how barriers have been overcome with all those responsible for training, from higher education institutions to those providing preceptorship and clinical supervision at trust level, on the embedding of compassionate care.

Identify where gaps depend on national level change or coordination and work with relevant bodies or other government departments to consider how these could be addressed. This will also consider how the government, NHSE and other arm’s length bodies can influence and support sustainable system level change.

While we recognise that this recommendation is not specific to maternity and neonatal care, it is important that compassionate care is an explicit theme in NHS England’s 3 year delivery plan . This is reflected in the significant work that is currently underway or has been implemented since the publication of the report.

In recognition of the need for midwifery training to reflect the currents needs of women and babies, and that good practice is embedded from the very start of undergraduate training, NHSE is currently undertaking a national quality review of pre-registration midwifery education. [footnote 1] The findings will inform the development of the Midwifery Safe Learning Environment Charter for a high-quality placement experience.

Alongside this, recent work by Health Education England ( HEE ) has highlighted the role of innovative and emerging technologies and other media to support training on compassionate care. The flexibility for approved education institutions to apply this in their training is reflected in the NMC Standards framework for nursing and midwifery education published in April 2023.

In summer 2023, NHSE will publish a standardised framework for what good midwifery supervision looks like, alongside an audit tool that will help trusts to evidence their commitment to ongoing training and supervision. To support this, HEE published its Educator workforce strategy in March 2023 with work ongoing to ensure the NHS has a sustainable supply of educators.

The NMC is about to launch a series of mini campaigns to support the application of the future midwife standards, published in 2020, in recognition that it is implementation of standards and not just their existence that will drive change.

The structures that support doctors’ learning differ depending on the stage of training and employment arrangements. This needs to be taken into consideration when reinforcing the message that kindness and compassion are considered to be core professional competencies rather than an optional part of practice.

The GMC sets the standards and outcomes for medical undergraduates and medical schools develop curricula to meet these. The GMC also approves postgraduate curricula which is developed by the medical royal colleges.

Compassionate care is well embedded in medical education curricula at undergraduate and postgraduate level. This is reflected in the GMC ’s Promoting excellence standards and Outcomes for graduates across several outcomes.

From 2024, the GMC is also introducing its Medical Licensing Assessment ( MLA ). The MLA content map is based on the GMC ’s requirements in ‘Outcomes for graduates’ and the Generic professional capabilities framework . The MLA will reinforce expected standards around essential skills, which include communication skills and patient centred care.

The GMC is also updating its core guidance for doctors, Good medical practice , which sets out the standards expected of them throughout their careers. This guidance will include a new, stronger teamworking duty which explicitly states that doctors be role models for compassionate, supportive and inclusive behaviours. This guidance will also incorporate strengthened leadership expectations of all doctors to contribute to more supportive cultures within healthcare. The GMC ’s updated core guidance should be read in conjunction with its report Caring for doctors, caring for patients (PDF, 1,941KB) , published in 2019, which sets out the 4 domains of compassionate leadership:

• understanding
• empathising

It also sets out the behaviours compassionate leaders should display to help translate this into practice.

The government understands the influence of those in senior roles in promoting a culture that facilitates compassionate care at all levels within the healthcare system. The NHS England Culture and Leadership programme , which was rolled out in 2016, provides trusts with a practical, evidence-based approach on understanding of and the steps needed to create truly compassionate and inclusive working environments. Specifically for maternity and neonatal care NHSE will offer by spring 2024 the perinatal Culture and Leadership programme to all senior maternity and neonatal leadership teams in England, including the neonatal, obstetric, midwifery and operational leads. This incorporates a diagnosis of local culture and practical support in co-developing improvement plans to nurture culture and leadership.

It is the responsibility of trusts to tackle any instances of racism or discrimination in the workplace, including for example acting on the principles set out in the combatting racial discrimination against minority ethnic nurses, midwives and nursing associates resource .

The NHSE Long Term Workforce Plan published on 30 June 2023 sets out how we will improve culture, leadership, wellbeing and staff retention over the next 15 years. The plan focuses on implementing actions from the NHS People Plan, improve flexible opportunities and support the health and wellbeing of the NHS workforce.

The Royal College of Midwives ( RCM ), recognising the need to support midwifery leaders and midwives in the provision of compassionate care through compassionate leadership, developed the Solutions Series in response to the independent Ockenden report of maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ( RCOG ) in recognition of doctors as leaders published in 2021 and updated in 2022 the Roles and responsibilities of a consultant . To note this document makes recommendations about the support organisations need to provide to enable consultants to fulfil their leadership responsibilities. This is in line with actions from the Ockenden review accepted by the government. This work is further supported by the RCOG workforce report 2022 which looks to the future on promotion of compassionate leadership.

Dr Kirkup notes the need for compassion in the approach to investigation of safety incidents. This needs to be taken in the context of the complexities that families have faced in navigating the system of complaints, incident investigation and appeal.

The development of the Maternity and Neonatal Independent Senior Advocates for maternity is at pilot stage, with the expectation that these individuals will provide support to women and their families navigating the healthcare system. They will advocate for the families and will be available to families attending follow up meetings with clinicians, particularly where there has been an adverse outcome.

The Patient Safety Incident Response Framework , published in 2022, sets out the NHS’s new approach to patient safety incidents and provides guidance for compassionate engagement with patients and families. The approach prioritises and respects the needs of people who have been affected and substantially improves understanding of what happened, and potentially how to prevent a similar incident in future as a result. The GMC is also reviewing how it engages families and patients in its fitness to practise processes to ensure that it is compassionate and responsive.

For change at local level, it is important for leaders to understand the culture within their own departments. In 2021, the NHS Staff Survey was expanded to include more specific questions around compassionate leadership which will in the future provide trusts with a picture of the progress they have made, but also provide visibility between directorates.

The new CQC assessment framework will continue to consider compassionate care through quality statements that describe what good care looks like. Implementation of the new regulatory model will start in 2023. CQC ’s NHS patient survey programme is designed to reflect the experience of particular groups and the care their receive.

NHSR Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts’ maternity incentive scheme ( MIS ) continues to encourage the use of Maternity and Neonatal Voices Partnerships. To further support this, by 2025 NHS England will create a patient-reported experience measure to enable trusts to monitor and improve personalised and compassionate care.

Recommendation 2ii

Relevant bodies, including royal colleges, professional regulators and employers, be commissioned to report on how the oversight and direction of clinicians can be improved, with nationally agreed standards of professional behaviour and appropriate sanctions for non-compliance.

The report illustrates that not only do clinical and behavioural standards need to exist, be understood and be overseen, they must also be supported by clear and fair mechanisms for their enforcement. These mechanisms should not only be clear to those working to these standards, but to those responsible for enforcing them, and to all of us who rely on the system to support the provision of safe care. The government has heard from families the distress and concern caused where local clinical governance systems have seemed to fail, and where this was not recognised.

Dr Kirkup highlights that despite the existence of long-standing professional standards, there was behaviour in the trust that fell far short of these expected standards.

Implementing this recommendation necessitates defining and distinguishing between the responsibilities of organisations responsible for local, regional and national oversight of care. This in turn needs to consider the professional standards expected of different healthcare professionals, at undergraduate and postgraduate level, who may or may not be engaged in speciality training.

We must also identify barriers to a fair and consistent approach to the use of standards and sanctioning, and where support is needed to make sure this can happen. We know it is important for those working in the system and equally for patients and their families to understand where these responsibilities lie.

DHSC will lead the response to this recommendation, in a central coordination role looking across the whole system. This work will be supported closely by NHSE .

Through commissions from those who work to support and influence the oversight of clinicians including royal colleges, regulators, NHSR , NHSE , NHS Employers and conversations with medical unions, trust human resources ( HR ) departments, patients and clinicians themselves and drawing on existing work, DHSC will coordinate activity to:

• Map current responsibilities around oversight and direction. This will include undergraduate and postgraduate nurses and midwives, other healthcare professionals, medical students, trainees, specialty doctors and specialist grade doctors ( SAS ), locally employed doctors, locums and consultants. This will include identification of good practice, gaps, concerns around transparency and fairness and consider how expansion in the regulated workforce will impact on capacity to support this oversight and direction. This will include exploration of opportunities for co-production of guidance around this.
• Share good practice and learning on proposed solutions to address gaps in roles and responsibilities in oversight and direction, and support for managing concerns about practice.
• Identify where gaps in oversight depend on national level change or coordination and work with relevant bodies or other government departments to consider addressing these. This will include examination of where regulators could contribute to identification of poorly performing trusts.

The NMC , GMC and other healthcare professional regulators have a statutory responsibility to set professional standards for all regulated healthcare professionals working in the UK. For the NMC , these are defined in The Code and its underpinning standards, and for the GMC in its core guidance for doctors, Good medical practice , and related explanatory guidance.

It is the responsibility of healthcare regulators to uphold professional standards. They do this in 2 ways. The first is by working with registrants and others to support registrants to uphold the standards. Secondly, where there is a serious failure to observe standards in a way that presents a risk to public protection or public confidence, regulators will take firm but fair action. This may include placing conditions on a healthcare professional’s registration or revoking their registration. Patients and families can raise their concerns directly with professional regulators about individuals.

It is important to note that regulatory sanctions will only apply in the most serious cases. Employers are responsible for supporting staff to meet regulatory standards in the workplace and it is for them role to deal with most instances of poor care.

Employers (generally hospital trusts) should have several options to support them in resolving unacceptable behaviour at a local level. These include local performance management through HR processes and local investigation which could result in the exclusion of professionals from practice while an investigation takes place. Depending on the outcomes of a local investigation, employers have a number of options at their disposal including HR warnings, supervision, changes in professionals’ work patterns, restrictions on practice, periodic suspension and dismissal.

Despite this, Dr Kirkup’s investigation and many that have come before show that employers do not always feel equipped to take early action to tackle shortfalls in the behavioural standards of medical, midwives and other healthcare professionals. Alongside this is the need for medical and nursing directors to be equipped with the skills to address these shortfalls, as should individual supervisors, supported by the workforce directors and boards.

While the professional standards remain the same irrespective of the stage of a clinician’s career, it is their employment arrangements which define responsibility for clinical and educational supervision.

A trust is responsible for employment sanctions for any doctor under its employment. However, the responsible officer for a doctor on a training programme is the postgraduate dean (employed by NHSE ), whereas doctors who are no longer in training are accountable to the responsible officer or medical director. These arrangements will differ again for locums where an agency may provide a responsible officer depending on circumstances.

It is therefore essential that organisations representing employers, professional regulators and the royal colleges all work together. Regulators already provide some information to assist employers with this. For example, the GMC provides a Clinical governance handbook which outlines the role that boards and governing bodies should play in governance for doctors, and how this can contribute to high quality patient care. The GMC has also published Principles of a good investigation (PDF, 156KB) to support employers to carry out effective local investigations. It is important that the national framework for managing performance concerns, ‘Maintaining high professional standards in the NHS’, is supported by locally defined standards and is enacted in a way that is proportionate, fair and consistent

In 2018, the NMC published its new strategic direction, ensuring public safety (PDF, 117KB) . This was based on evidence gathered during a public consultation and commissioned qualitative research, one of the principles of which is that employers should act first to deal with concerns about a registrant’s practice, unless the risk to patients or the public is so serious that we need to take immediate action.

To support this, the NMC ’s Employer Link Service provides training for senior nurses and midwives and trusts on whether a referral to the NMC is needed and offers local support for resolution of concerns. These training sessions also cover what the NMC does to support professionals on its register and provide information about its standards. The NMC also provides additional sessions about The Code and how it works in action.

With specific reference to locums, since February 2023 it has been a prerequisite for short-term locums working as junior or senior registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology to have an NHS certificate of eligibility for short-term locums ( CEL ) . The competencies are aligned with those that would be expected in GMC -approved postgraduate training. To cement its use, CEL is included in the maternity incentive scheme ( MIS ), as is RCOG safe staffing guidance on:

• the engagement of long-term locums in maternity care (PDF, 864KB)
• compensatory rest (PDF, 379KB) for consultants and SAS doctors working as non-resident on-call out of hours
• compliance of consultant attendance (PDF, 1,514KB) for the clinical situations identified in the roles and responsibilities of consultants document

Practitioner Performance Advice ( PPA ), delivered by NHSR , provides NHS organisations and the independent sector with support in resolving concerns about clinical and behavioural performance, and is a source of support to trusts, their clinical directors and practitioners. In line with NHSR , maternity is a strategic pillar for PPA . This service works closely with the GMC , BMA and defence organisations to support clear process, consistency and fairness around Maintaining high professional standards in the NHS . However, this support is contingent on trusts, their clinical leaders and HR departments contacting them to seek support.

Recommendation 3

Recommendation 3i

Relevant bodies, including RCOG , RCM and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, be charged with reporting on how teamworking in maternity and neonatal care can be improved, with particular reference to establishing common purpose, objectives and training from the outset.

The government recognises the importance of improved teamwork in maternity and neonatal care and its vital role in patient safety.

Dr Kirkup found evidence of dysfunctional teamworking within and across professional groups in East Kent, which prevented information sharing, and encouraged complacency and lack of accountability. Following discussions with families and patient representatives, we understand that this recommendation is not confined to hospital care and extends to bridging care between the community and the hospital.

We believe, following discussions with stakeholders, that key to responding to this recommendation in a meaningful way is developing an understanding of barriers to teamwork. These are complex and varied. It has been proposed that some of these may be attributable to outdated understanding of roles of obstetricians and midwives. It may also be that the physical set ups of some units inhibit joint handovers, the rotas of junior doctors inhibit continuity of training and supervision, or that teams are not able to release staff to join training. When it comes to clinical practice, the way the health service operates, rota design and the increasing number of locum roles present structural barriers to teams forming, building and improving. It would be helpful for royal colleges to reflect on this with organisations that represent employers, such as NHS Employers.

DHSC will lead the response to this recommendation in a central coordination role, with the close support of NHSE .

Through commissions from relevant bodies including royal colleges, CQC , NHSR , NHSE , HSIB maternity investigations programme, regulators, engagement with those working in healthcare and patients, and drawing on existing work, including CQC inspections, DHSC will coordinate reports that will:

• Provide evidence through experience and examine existing research on how and where teamwork is being done well. This will include how care pathways are developed and how they are implemented. This will draw together experience from inside and outside maternity and neonatal care.
• Bring together examples of good practice to support trusts and all those supporting teamwork to utilise as a resource of solutions to barriers and identified gaps.
• Consider whether, where gaps and barriers are identified, relevant bodies or government can support solutions.

The need for and value of working as a team and multidisciplinary training is well recognised in maternity and neonatal care and is explicit in NHSE ’s 3 year delivery plan published in March 2023. The team based approach to training is set as a minimum standard in the modules within the new core competency framework published in May 2023, the compliance with which is incentivised through the maternity incentive scheme. RCM and RCOG continue to advocate for all training at trust level to be multi-disciplinary, which is supported by Donna Ockenden in her immediate and essential actions following her review of care at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust .

To better understand this issue, NHSE is undertaking scoping work with stakeholders to explore what may be possible to improve the interprofessional experience. Given that professional behaviours start to develop at undergraduate level, this work will initially focus on promoting interprofessional experience pre-registration, before moving on to other areas within the career pathway.

The importance of effective teamwork is highlighted within the GMC ’s education and training outcomes. For example, the GMC ’s Outcomes for graduates states that newly qualified doctors must learn and work effectively within multi-disciplinary teams across multiple care settings, and sets out what they must be able to do to demonstrate this. As mentioned above, the GMC ’s updated core medical guidance, Good medical practice , will include a new, stronger team-working duty which highlights the importance of interpersonal relationships, respecting other professionals’ skills and aims to embed psychological safety as central to effective teams.

The need for shared team training is noted by Dr Kirkup in his report. Multidisciplinary training structures such as Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training ( PROMPT ) , Neonatal Life Support, or in house training may help to contribute to an environment of teamwork, as highlighted in the Better births Maternity Review Report. The provision of multi-disciplinary training is incentivised through the MIS that is managed by the NHSR . The MIS supports the delivery of safer maternity care through an incentive element to trust contributions to the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST).

The RCM Solution Series on human factors provides a structure for self-check-in which provides clear practical tips on teamwork under pressure.

Perinatal Mortality Review Tool ( PMRT ) framework guidance published in 2018 advises trusts on the importance of multi-disciplinary participation in case reviews. In 2021, the PMRT was used to start a review in 99% of neonatal deaths in England. Although multidisciplinary involvement varied, the framework provides trusts with a clear mechanism for conducting case reviews and who to involve. The use of the PMRT is incentivised in the MIS .

The importance of clearly defined roles within teams has been cited as a facilitator to teamwork (PDF, 637KB) , as has the role of individual trust and department culture. The NHS Perinatal culture and leadership programme is being rolled out to directly address these cultural challenges. This is discussed in more detail under recommendation 2i above.

Where teams do require support to identify issues and address them, the PPA can act as an external facilitator and advisor. In keeping with the NHSR strategic pillars, the PPA considers maternity as a priority area. However, as noted above this requires trusts to recognise, issue and seek support.

CQC ’s national maternity inspection programme examines team working, looking at how teams work together, train together and learn together. This will also be reflected in new CQC single assessment framework . Implementation of the new regulatory model will start in 2023.

In response to the publication of the final Ockenden report in March 2022 into maternity failings at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust, DHSC and NHSE established a short-term independent maternity working group ( IMWG ), chaired jointly by the RCM and RCOG . The IMWG has shared good practice and initiatives, commented on the recommended immediate and essential actions and provided clinical expertise in the NHSE working groups, acting as a critical friend to support delivering positive change for women families and staff. This group has contributed significant expertise across maternity safety focusing on the Ockenden and East Kent reports, with a key component being the demonstration of teamwork at all levels.

Staffing levels can also contribute to poor teamworking when teams are stretched. To help address this it is expected that the target to increase midwifery training places by 3,650 from 2019 to 2020 will have been met this year, alongside expansion in obstetrics and gynaecology training places by 40 in 2022 to 2023 and 2023 to 2024.

Recommendation 3ii

Relevant bodies, including Health Education England, [footnote 2] royal colleges and employers, be commissioned to report on the employment and training of junior doctors to improve support, teamworking and development.

The government accepts that there is a need to improve the support and development for junior doctors. We also understand that the structure and make-up of the workforce is changing, and it is vital that everyone is included in this support. Dr Kirkup specifically notes that there is a need to re-evaluate the changed patterns of working for junior doctors and their impact on teamwork.

As the medical workforce adapts to the needs of the modern NHS, we recognise that training and development needs to include those inside formal postgraduate training schemes, those who are seeking to progress to certificate of eligibility for specialist registration outside these training structures, those who are working as speciality doctors, and those who are working towards roles as specialist doctors, locally employed doctors and locums at all levels. These groups will have different relationships with the trusts in which they work and respective royal colleges. By 2030 it is projected that 30% of doctors below consultant level in obstetrics and gynaecology will be SAS and locally employed doctors.

DHSC will lead the response to this recommendation and be supported closely by NHSE .

Through commissions by DHSC to relevant bodies, including medical royal colleges, the National Guardian’s Office and those working in healthcare, DHSC will coordinate reports that will:

• Map how the support for junior doctors, and those who have yet to complete training including locums, is translated into practice, what access they have to development and how teamwork is embedded within this. This would include trust level considerations around rotas and impact on teamwork and will consider regional and national programmes.
• Identify and share good practice and learning around proposed solutions to address gaps in roles and responsibilities for supervision for specific groups.
• Consider whether the government and its arm’s length bodies ( ALBs ) need to provide support to the system to address gaps and barriers.

The need for structured support is recognised by those responsible for training and remains under constant review. Whether a junior doctor is in formal training or not may define where and how they are supported and access to professional development.

For doctors in postgraduate training, the medical royal colleges and faculties design the curriculum, and the GMC approve it. However, the need for reform has been recognised by the GMC . In response to calls for urgent reform of training by patients, doctors and employers in 2017, the GMC published Adapting for the future: a plan for improving the flexibility of UK postgraduate medical training . The ambitious vision for reform was supported by the Generic professional capabilities framework . While this relates to postgraduate medical education and training, it was expected to support all phases of UK medical education and continuing professional development.

The Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans’ Gold Guide sets out a framework with clear principles for the operational management of postgraduate training to support consistent decision making by postgraduate deans and their support structures on training needs and support. In addition to this, HEE has practical supervision guidance in the Enhancing Supervision in Postgraduate Training handbook in response to concerns raised by trainees as part of Enhancing Junior Doctors’ Working Lives programme ( EJDWL ). EJDWL was established in 2016 and continues to provide meaningful change to the system.

We are aware that access to local or regional teaching and training, funding or clinical cover for study leave will vary greatly for locally employed and SAS doctors. The local employment arrangements for trusts vary. In response to calls for better support for SAS doctors, NHSE has established SAS leads, and in 2017 the Academy of Royal Colleges, the BMA , HEE and NHS Employers published a SAS doctor development guide (updated in 2020). In 2019, HEE published a document outlining essential measures to support SAS doctors . Similarly, this arrangement would then differ again for locum doctors and locally employed doctors.

For all junior doctors we need to acknowledge that while guidance exists on access to development and support it is not always implemented. This is also the case with meaningful induction to trusts and new departments to allow those in new roles to be welcomed, identifiable and supported. We do know this is being done well in many areas. However, we know in some trusts and deaneries there are barriers to this, noting that initial conversations have pointed to the main barrier currently being staffing shortages.

Recommendation 4

Recommendation 4i

The government reconsiders bringing forward a bill placing a duty on public bodies not to deny, deflect and conceal information from families and other bodies.

Recommendation 4ii

Trusts be required to review their approach to reputation management and to ensuring there is proper representation of maternity care on their boards.

Recommendation 4iii

NHSE reconsiders its approach to poorly performing trusts, with particular reference to leadership.

Healthcare professionals and healthcare bodies must be honest and transparent with patients, their families and with other bodies. This requirement is referred to as the ‘duty of candour’ and in most healthcare settings it is respected and upheld. However, it’s clear from this report that some of those involved in East Kent did not adhere to the duty of candour. This left families without answers or even feeling deceived by those working in a system in which they placed so much trust. This should never be the case for anyone who is seeking answers from those who have responsibility for caring for them.

We received feedback during our discussions with the families and some other stakeholders that there is concern and a perception that trusts and individuals are being hindered in their ability to be fully transparent by legal advice, or through reputation management strategies. It is also clear to us from those discussions that a duty of candour is not satisfied just by a single, one-off candid conversation, but should underpin the whole of the process of supporting and working with families, at every stage.

The existing legislation that supports this transparency is the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 which introduced this statutory duty of candour for every health and social care provider that CQC regulates. The duty of candour requires registered providers and managers to act in an open and transparent way with people receiving care or treatment from them.

In addition, the Care Act 2014 introduced a new offence in relation to the provision of false or misleading information.

When a notifiable patient safety incident occurs in the course of a patient’s care, NHS organisations are legally required under a statutory duty of candour to:

• act openly and transparently
• provide patients with an accurate account of what happened

When reviewing trusts, CQC looks at culture, and how and whether this duty is being delivered. CQC can take enforcement action against a provider for breaching the regulations.

The government acknowledges the failure to adhere to this duty of candour that was so evident in this report and recognises the need for action in this area in order to make sure the duty is effectively applied and to create a culture of candour throughout organisations. For maternity and neonatal care, we have set out our approach to creating a culture of honesty, compassion and safety through the 3 year delivery plan . This includes the perinatal culture and leadership programme which provides a diagnosis of local culture and practical support to all units. That is accompanied by clear expectations of trusts to maintain an ethos of honest reporting and sharing of information, regular reviews of the quality of their services, and listening to and acting on feedback from staff including freedom to speak up ( FTSU ) data. Trust boards are expected to support a focused plan to improve and sustain culture, including alignment with their FTSU strategy and ensuing all staff have access to FTSU training and a guardian who can support them to speak up.

Alongside this, our new Patient Safety Incident Response Framework ( PSIRF ) will be embedded in trusts by autumn 2023. PSIRF is a contractual requirement under the NHS Standard Contract and as such is mandatory for services provided under that contract. The framework sets out requirements for providers to work compassionately with those affected by an incident. This may help to alleviate some of the harm caused and facilitate understanding and learning from what went wrong. These requirements include the legal expectations of duty of candour and meaningful engagement and involvement of service users and staff. During 2023, NHSE will support the implementation of PSIRF in maternity and neonatal care with national learning events.

When considering the broader recommendation made by Dr Kirkup for a bill to place a “duty on public bodies not to deny, deflect and conceal information from families and other bodies”, the government will set out its position in response to Bishop James Jones’ 2017 report on the experiences of the families bereaved by the Hillsborough disaster in due course.

The government believes that this transparency should extend to clear understanding of the processes for families to have their voices heard, for them to access redress and where they can find independent support. This would need to include a clear understanding of where families and staff can turn if these systems are not working as was the finding in this report. When women and families do have concerns and would prefer to discuss these with someone not involved in their care, their local Maternity Voices Partnership ( MVP ) or the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) can offer advice and support. These mechanisms must be accessible, and families need to be aware of them. It is expected that the implementation of the role of the Independent Senior Advocate, which was an action from the final Ockenden report , could strengthen this. The rollout of this post is still at pilot stage and pending review.

In relation to reputation management, the NHS should be open and transparent with everyone using NHS services. That is supported by the guidance on the professional duty of candour from the NMC and GMC . Concerns in relation to openness and transparency are considered a safety issue, as made clear in the report. Addressing these concerns forms part of the expectations of a well led and well governed organisation which are set out in the NHS oversight framework . In the case of the most challenged trusts, support to address the underlying leadership and governance issues will be provided via the Recovery Support Programme ( RSP ).

Shortly after the publication of the report, NHSE asked all trusts and integrated care boards (ICBs) to review all of the recommendations - including this recommendation to review their approach to reputation management - at their next public board meeting.

The CQC , as part of its new regulatory model, will continue to consider trust leadership at executive team and trust board level as part of the well-led key question in its single assessment framework. This will continue to include duty of candour and how a provider ensures it is fulfilling its responsibility to carry out all aspects of the duty.

Work since the publication of this report has revealed some of the factors that it is felt inhibit transparency and openness. These include how legal advice to trusts is used around serious incidents and culture embedded when performance of trusts was solely target driven.

Recommendation 6 in the Messenger review , that has been accepted by the government, and to which NHSE is responding, states that “the NHS must achieve greater diversity so that NED [non-executive director] and chair roles more closely reflect the communities they serve and the staff they govern”. When achieved and sustained it may in turn facilitate openness within the trust and communication with communities the trusts serves.

The government knows the importance of proper, meaningful and skilled maternity representation on trust boards via the maternity and neonatal board safety champions. We expect these maternity and neonatal board safety champions to be fully supported by the trust board.

We recognise the significant role that maternity and neonatal safety champions should be playing at frontline and board levels. This acts to safeguard good and undiluted ward to board communication on maternity issues.

Since the publication of this report NHSE have made more explicit the nature of proper representation at board level. The NHSE 3 year delivery plan clearly sets out how maternity and neonatal services should be represented at trust board level. Trusts should “appoint an executive and non-executive maternity and neonatal board safety champion to retain oversight and drive improvement. This includes inviting maternity and neonatal leads to participate directly in board discussions”.

Representation through both executive and non-executive safety champions is incentivised through the NHSR maternity incentive scheme . Guidance and a toolkit to support maternity and neonatal safety champions, including those on trust boards, have been developed to enable them to deliver best practice. However, this does not yet include explicit reporting on the involvement of leads in board discussions.

We know from discussions with stakeholders that the role and quality of board safety champions can vary significantly between trusts. NHSE has worked with board safety champions both pre- and post-publication of the report to better understand the challenges faced by this group, and what support could be offered to ensure individuals are enabled to undertake this role to the best of their ability.

A major theme to emerge from this engagement was the challenge of meaningfully using the existing and emerging datasets on maternity and neonatal care. To address this, in the 2023 to 2024 financial year, NHSE is commissioning a support programme for board safety champions to focus on developing the leadership, culture and processes needed for them and their teams to be able to use qualitative and quantitative data to improve maternity and neonatal safety in their organisations. This will include the need to be curious and transparent with their data.

NHSE is also updating the toolkit to be more explicit about the difference in roles and responsibilities of the executive and non-executive board safety champions, as they are, and should, be very different. The toolkit will recognise the importance of collaborative working between the service level and board safety champions to enable an honest representation of maternity issues and best practice at board. It will also support the maternity and neonatal service level champions having a direct voice at board, rather than information solely being presented via the board safety champion.

The government recognises the importance of considering how poorly performing trusts are supported. The appropriate support is needed for trusts to access additional expertise and resources to ensure improvements are made as soon as possible. It is important that the government sees improvements that are not only implemented but, more crucially, they are sustained.

A key part of NHS England’s support on leadership for the most challenged trusts is via the Recovery Support Programme , whereby experienced improvement directors work with boards and executives on areas of leadership, governance, culture and staff engagement. NHSE continuously assesses the effectiveness of the approach taken in the RSP and has recently commissioned a formal rapid evaluation via the NIHR , which will help inform NHSE ’s longer-term response to this recommendation.

NHSE is already responding to 2 reviews that address trust leadership that we believe will also address this recommendation.

The recent Messenger review examined leadership in the NHS. Recommendation 7 of the review describes the need to encourage top talent to work in challenged parts of the NHS, which will act to support these vulnerable trusts. The government accepted all the recommendations from the Messenger review and NHSE is in the process of responding more generally .

In response to the Kark review of the fit and proper persons test ( FPPT ), NHSE has established a steering group to implement recommendations 1 to 4 . These recommendations address:

• competence of executives and non-executives to sit on the board
• that a central database of directors be created
• that there are mandatory reference requirements for directors
• the extension of the FPPT to ALBs

The steering group will not only provide a mechanism to review progress on delivery but will take into account inputs from expert advisory panels and whistleblowers. As part of this work, a FPPT framework with guidance will be developed to support its application. It is hoped that this rigorous application of these recommendations will allow the FPPT to be adapted to ensure better leadership and management, and prevent employment of inappropriate directors.

NHSE has powers regarding the replacement of trust leadership which it uses in extreme and exceptional circumstances, and applies fairly, reasonably and proportionally, and with the interests of those served by the trust in mind. Many vulnerable hospitals suffer with lack of permanence of leadership which in some circumstances will act to exacerbate issues. In many circumstances it is more appropriate to support those who are there to oversee change of often longstanding and engrained cultures.

While interventions to support vulnerable trusts are key to improvements, the government will work with NHSE , through the co-ordination group outlined in response to recommendation 1, to make sure these mechanisms do not wait for harm to be done before action is taken.

Recommendation 5

That the trust:

• accepts the reality of these findings
• acknowledges in full the unnecessary harm that has been caused
• embarks on a restorative process addressing the problems identified, in partnership with families, publicly and with external input

On receiving the report on 19 October 2022, the trust apologised unreservedly and publicly accepted all of the findings. They have a clear determination to use the lessons within it to make the improvements needed in order to consistently deliver the safe and compassionate care local communities should expect. The trust recognises that learning from the report is relevant to the entire trust and have acknowledged that previous efforts to tackle some embedded problems have not been successful.

On 21 October 2022, the trust board held an extraordinary board meeting attended both virtually and in person by families, members of the public and the media, and formally accepted the report in full and committed to addressing the areas for action in the report and the recommendation for the trust. The trust also discussed the report and its findings in public meetings of its Council of Governors, local health overview and scrutiny committee, and all subsequent public board meetings.

In February 2023, the trust set out its response to the report which was published alongside an open letter of apology to the public and shared with every member of staff. These immediate, short and long-term actions include improving how they listen to and involve patients and families and specific, focused work in maternity to improve safety, as well as work being taken forward across the trust.

The board will be responsible for overseeing this major transformation programme with day-to-day responsibility for delivery and monitoring progress taken forward by its clinical executive management group. Specific improvements in maternity and neonatology services will continue to be overseen by a maternity and neonatal assurance group, again reporting to the trust’s board.

Specifically, the trust:

• has set up a ‘Reading the signals’ oversight group which includes families who were involved in the independent investigation, the local maternity and neonatal service, MVP , ICB and NHSE colleagues and the trust’s Council of Governors. It meets in public and reports directly to the board of directors. It provides oversight of the trust’s response to Reading the signals and makes sure there is appropriate engagement with patients, their families and the community to oversee, challenge and advise on how the trust embarks and embeds the restorative process required to address the problems identified in the report
• has established an independent case review process. Families who have concerns about maternity or neonatal care they received from the trust are offered the opportunity to meet with or speak to experts independent of the trust, regardless of whether their care had previously been reviewed or investigated by the trust
• has so far held discussions with more than 4,500 women about all aspects of their and their baby’s care, giving opportunities for staff recognition, learning and action. Through an initiative called ‘Your voice is heard’, all maternity service users, and their partners, are offered a 30-minute follow-up call to discuss their experiences 6 weeks after giving birth. There are clear action plans to address feedback - for example, provision of improved facilities for partners and a pain management group with pain control training for staff with additional options such as TENS machines to improve pain management. This work is supported by 2 patient experience midwives recruited specifically to improve the experience of families and was co-designed with the local MVP
• has developed a new bereavement pathway. Specialist bereavement midwives have worked with families and SANDS, the saving babies lives charity, to improve and expand the emotional and practical support provided to families. This includes any subsequent pregnancies, labour and delivery and has resulted in a new model of care which includes a newly recruited team providing a 7-day service
• as part of the commitment to nurture compassionate leaders and effective teams that work well together, is adopting NHS England’s Culture and Leadership Programme developed by the Kings Fund. This programme has been introduced elsewhere in the NHS and there are proven links between compassion in healthcare and outcomes for patients. It is aimed at all levels in the trust and has recruited 110 change champions across the trust by summer 2023
• is creating an organisational culture which feels psychologically safe enough to speak up, learn and improve in. The trust expanded its freedom to speak up ( FTSU ) team by appointing 4 dedicated FTSU guardians, one specifically for maternity, and 20 FTSU champions who have been proactive in raising the visibility of the service. They have seen a 269% increase in people contacting them (155 times in 2022 to 2023). Feedback is being used in mandatory training and is being used with other information to identify and support areas of risk
• has implemented a rapid incident review process to ensure that potential serious incidents are formally highlighted, and immediate safety improvements have been actioned. The Kent and Medway ICB is supporting the trust to engage external clinical experts to undertake case reviews
• has recruited a new experienced, substantive director and deputy director of midwifery who started in post in mid May 2023 to provide strengthened maternity leadership and support further improvements to the service across the trust
• as part of dying matters week in May 2023, has made a caring with compassion video . The film features trust staff and was funded by the East Kent Hospitals charity. The video is being used in mandatory training for all trust staff and is one of the commitments made in response to ‘Reading the signals’

The trust has received intensive support from NHSE National Intensive Support Team, Southeast NHSE regional team and the Kent and Medway ICB within an aligned improvement support approach.

The trust recognises that sustained, long-term change takes time and is committed to working with external partners, and with patients and their families, to deliver the safe, high-quality care their communities expect.

We will continue to work collaboratively across the health service, with those who work in it and patients who rely on it as we implement these recommendations and deliver on the commitments made in this response. We remain fully committed to learning and improving the provision of maternity and neonatal care. This response is one step within a longer journey which is already underway.

Progress on implementation of the recommendations will be monitored through NHSE governance routes and by the department, directly accountable to ministers. This includes through the newly established national oversight group.

For the purposes of this response where work was done by Health Education England ( HEE ), we will refer to them in this capacity. However, future and current work will be referred to as being led by NHSE as HEE merged with NHS on 1 April 2023.  ↩

For the purposes of this response where work was done by HEE , we will refer to them in this capacity. However, future and current work will be referred to as being led by NHSE as HEE merged with NHS on 1 April 2023. The recommendation wording is taken directly from the ‘Reading the signals’ report published before this merger.  ↩

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .