NHS England report characterises gay and transgender people as having disability or long-term condition
NHS England’s chief people officer has said she regrets what was a ‘drafting error’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A major NHS workforce plan has sparked outrage after it appeared to characterise gay, lesbian and transgender people as being similar to people with a disability or long-term condition.
The NHS People Plan was published last week and set out a vision for improving working conditions for NHS staff in England to boost recruitment and tackle long-standing shortages of staff.
But senior health bosses as well as doctors and nurses have criticised a passage in the document describing the difficulties for LGBT+ NHS staff as the same as those who were disabled.
In a section about the NHS workforce disability equality standard, which is a set of metrics designed to measure how the NHS treats disabled staff, the People Plan document, which is still available online, said: “The workforce disability equality standard has begun to shine a light on the difficulties that colleagues with disabilities and long-term health conditions face.”
It then added: “But there remain challenges. For example, we know that the majority of staff who identify as LGBTQ+ do not feel confident enough to report their sexuality on their employment record.”
This was the only reference to LGBT+ staff in the document and the unexplained link to those with a disability prompted criticism from a number of senior NHS figures.
NHS England has now changed the document online, inserting a paragraph break and adding: “Other staff groups also face significant challenges” before the sentence about LGBT+ workers.
Dame Jackie Daniel, who runs Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Trust, said on Twitter she “had to do a double take”, adding the passage was “not acceptable”.
David Melia, the chief nurse at Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust, said the passage was “absolutely shameful” adding: “I’m really curious to hear how this has gone through the proof reading and editing process. It must be deliberate.”
Steve Russell, chief executive of Harrogate and District Foundation Trust, said while he supported the focus on inclusion and marginalised groups, “surprised is the politest word I can find to explain the NHS People Plan suggesting (even accidentally) that being LGBT+ is a disability or long-term condition”.
He later added: “Despite the support of my parents I found it hard coming out in 1998 ... 22 years later seeing this reminds me why, and sadly one might have thought things would have moved on.
“Problem is that it will have been read by many before being published and was at best unnoticed ... which says something in itself.”
Andrew Corbett-Nolan, chief executive of the Good Governance Institute, added: “What an unpleasant Freudian slip in the drafting. Awful. The underlying and constructive point they are making, though, regarding confidence and the employment record is just shocking.”
In response to the criticism Prerana Issar, NHS England’s chief people officer, said: “Unfortunately there was a drafting error which has now been corrected and I regret any upset or misunderstanding.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments