4. Recruitment of participants

The aim of the scheme was to recruit newly qualified or ‘new’ nurses to the Trusts. Several stakeholders commented that they regarded this to be the ideal time for nurses to embark on further study, as they are still accustomed to doing academic work.

4.1 Where did participants come from?

Results from the first survey of participants in each cohort provided data on the employment background of participants — how many were new to the Trusts?

Just over half of the first cohort were new to the Trusts, whilst the remainder were already working at either CNWL (8) or at WLMHT (2). A larger proportion of cohort 2 were newly qualified nurses, 8 out of 13 respondents reporting they were previously doing diploma/degree. Whereas only 3 out of 12 respondents from cohort 3 were newly qualified — 5 had previously worked at one of the Trusts and 4 had come from other Trusts.

Looking across all three cohorts covered by the surveys, of the 48 participants who completed a questionnaire at the start of the scheme, 30% (15 people) were already working at CNWL, 6% (3 people) at WLMHT, 19% elsewhere, and 40% were newly qualified nurses.

Respondents were asked if they had considered working at either of the Trusts before hearing of the scheme. Of the 30 who were not already working at the Trust prior to the scheme, just over half (57%) had not considered working at CNWL or WLMHT. Two fifths (12 out of 29 cases) said they would not have been interested in taking up a D grade post at either of the Trusts if it were not for the scheme. Thus the scheme can be considered to have been effective in widening the recruitment pool and attractive to the market of potential nurse employees.

4.2 Views of the recruitment process

Each cohort were asked what they thought of the recruitment process and whether they felt it could be improved in anyway. Respondents from cohort 1 were broadly positive about the recruitment and selection process although three-quarters felt there was room for improvement — primarily by providing more information once appointed to the scheme.

Focus groups were held with the first cohort at the very start of the project, before they had started the scheme. The views they expressed at this stage concurred with the survey findings; the majority were reasonably satisfied with the recruitment process. The improvements most frequently suggested, was to increase the amount of written information available, particularly on the educational component. One or two reported that they had difficulties in getting hold of anyone to answer queries since being offered a place, which concerned them.

Cohort 2 respondents were also broadly positive about the recruitment and selection process although half felt it could be improved — primarily by providing more information once appointed to the scheme.

The third cohort were also reasonably satisfied with recruitment and two-thirds were satisfied with the information they received before they were appointed. Five out of twelve felt the recruitment process could be improved, in the main by giving participants more information, particularly about the placement areas. One participant suggested that there should be a uniform length of time for recruitment and that all participants should start the scheme at the same time.

A point to note about the recruitment of cohort 2 (that also applies to a lesser extent to cohort 3), was the number of candidates that were offered places on the scheme but either never started at the Trust or left early on. The intention was to recruit 24 participants to each cohort, twelve in each Trust. Although 23 participants were expected to be on the scheme in the second cohort, 8 of these recruits never started. A further six left the scheme within the first few months. In cohort 3, six of the 21 recruits withdrew or did not start the scheme. This contrasts with the first cohort, where all 24 recruits were on the scheme at the time of the first survey. It raises the questions: ‘Did the recruitment process or type of applicants in the later cohorts differ from the first cohort?’ Or does it reflect some wider organisational issue?

Looking across the views of respondents from each cohort who were still on the scheme at the time of the first survey, the results suggest that although the third cohort still felt recruitment could be improved, the proportions holding this view had gradually decreased since scheme started in 2000. Three-quarters of the first cohort felt the recruitment process could be improved, half in the second and less than half in the third. Also the type of improvements suggested changed over time, suggesting that some of the initial problems of lack of information about the education component prior to starting work had been resolved. Later participants were more likely to focus on information about the placements.

Whilst supervisors had no direct role in the recruitment of participants, their views were sought at the start of the scheme. Most were confident that the criteria used in selection would have been adequate but felt their input would have been beneficial, for example to ensure that male/female mix of staff recruited matched service needs.

They also raised issues related to the location, and the fact that high accommodation and travel costs could be a disincentive to new recruits. For example, participants based at Ealing travelling to Charing Cross would have to cross two tube zones, making it quite costly over an 8-month placement.