Implications for health system reform, workforce recovery and rebuilding in the context of the Great Recession and COVID-19: a case study of workforce trends in Ireland 2008-2021.

BACKGROUND: Workforce is a fundamental health systems building block, with unprecedented measures taken to meet extra demand and facilitate surge capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, following a prolonged period of austerity. This case study examines trends in Ireland's publicly funded health service workforce, from the global financial crisis, through the Recovery period and into the COVID-19 pandemic, to understand resource allocation across community and acute settings. Specifically, this paper aims to uncover whether skill-mix and staff capacity are aligned with policy intent and the broader reform agenda to achieve universal access to integrated healthcare, in part, by shifting free care into primary and community settings. METHODS: Secondary analysis of anonymised aggregated national human resources data was conducted over a period of almost 14 years, from December 31st 2008 to August 31st 2021. Comparative analysis was conducted, by professional cadre, across three keys periods: 'Recession period' December 31st 2008-December 31st 2014; 'Recovery period' December 31st 2014-December 31st 2019; and the 'COVID-19 period' December 31st 2019-August 31st 2021. RESULTS: During the Recession period there was an overall decrease of 8.1% (n = 9333) between December 31st 2008 and December 31st 2014, while the Recovery period saw the overall staff levels rebound and increase by 15.2% (n = 16,789) between December 31st 2014 and December 31st 2019. These figures continued to grow, at an accelerated rate during the most recent COVID-19 period, increasing by a further 8.9% (n = 10,716) in under 2 years. However, a notable shift occurred in 2013, when the number of staff in acute services surpassed those employed in community services (n = 50,038 and 49,857, respectively). This gap accelerated during the Recovery and COVID-19 phase. By August 2021, there were 13,645 more whole-time equivalents in acute settings compared to community, a complete reverse of the 2008 situation. This was consistent across all cadres. Workforce absence trends indicate short-term spikes resulting from shocks while COVID-19 redeployment disproportionately impacted negatively on primary care and community services. CONCLUSIONS: This paper clearly demonstrates the prioritisation of staff recruitment within acute services-increasing needed capacity, without the same commitment to support government policy to shift care into primary and community settings. Concerted action including the permanent redistribution of personnel is required to ensure progressive and sustainable responses are learned from recent shocks.

The impact of austerity on the health workforce and the achievement of human resources for health policies in Ireland (2008-2014).

BACKGROUND: The global economic crisis saw recessionary conditions in most EU countries. Ireland's severe recession produced pro-cyclical health spending cuts. Yet, human resources for health (HRH) are the most critical of inputs into a health system and an important economic driver. The aim of this article is to evaluate how the Irish health system coped with austerity in relation to HRH and whether austerity allowed and/or facilitated the implementation of HRH policy. METHODS: The authors employed a quantitative longitudinal trend analysis over the period 2008 to 2014 with Health Service Executive (HSE) staff database as the principal source. For the purpose of this study, heath service employment is defined as directly employed whole-time equivalent public service staffing in the HSE and other government agencies. The authors also examined the heath sector pay bill and sought to establish linkages between the main staff database and pay expenditure, as given in the HSE Annual Accounts and Financial Statements (AFS), and key HRH policies. RESULTS: The actual cut in total whole-time equivalent (WTE) of directly employed health services human resources over the period 2008 to 2014 was 8027 WTE, a reduction of 7.2% but substantially less than government claims. There was a degree of relative protection for frontline staffing decreasing by 2.9% between 2008 and 2014 and far less than the 18.5% reduction in other staff. Staff exempted from the general moratorium also increased by a combined 12.6%. Counter to stated policy, the decline in staffing of non-acute care was over double than in acute care. Further, the reduction in directly employed staff was to a great extent matched by a marked increase in agency spending. CONCLUSIONS: The cuts forced substantial HRH reductions and yet there was some success in pursuing policy goals, such as increasing the frontline workforce while reducing support staff and protection of some cadres. Nevertheless, other policies failed such as moving staff away from acute settings and the claimed financial savings were substantially offset by overtime payments and the need to hire more expensive agency workers. There was also substantial demotivation of staff as a consequence of the changes.