Workforce disability equality standard metrics

Metric 1 key findings: percentage of staff in AfC pay bands or medical and dental subgroups and very senior managers

  • Overall, in 2020, 2.3% of non-clinical and 2.8% of clinical staff declared a disability through the Trust ESR records.
  • For Medical and dental staff, 1.2% of trainee grades, 1.3% of non –consultant career grade and 0.7% consultant grades declared a disability
Declarations by year
Clusters % declarations
% did not declare
% declarations
% did not
AfC bands 1-4 1.30% 27.30% 1.10% 22.97%
AfC bands 5-7 2.40% 22.30% 2.17% 22.05%
AfC bands 8A-8B 2.60% 33.70% 1.90% 37.03%
fC bands 8C-VSM 2.10% 42.30% 0.00% 41.82%
Medical consultants 0.78% 46.97% 1.44% 50.31%
Non-consultants 1.32% 24.34% 0.68% 34.16%
Trainees 1.24% 15.98% 2.70% 35.59%

Metric 2 key findings: relative likelihood of Disabled staff applicants being appointed from shortlisting compared to non-disabled applicants

Metric 2 data is based on data from 8851 shortlisted applicants via the Trust trac system. Analysis revealed that across the Trust, non-disabled job applicants were more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared to Disabled applicants. When compared with previous WDES reporting years, the relative likelihood of Disabled staff to be appointed from shortlisting has reduced to 0.79 compared to likelihood of 1.25 in 2019 and 1.24 in 2020. This is also below the London average of 1.07 and Acute Trusts was 1.34 (2019 data)

  • Non-disabled job applicants were less likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared to disabled applicants (relative likelihood of 0.79)
  • Compared to 2019 and 2020 the likelihood of shortlisting was reduced from 1.25 and 1.24 respectively

Metric 3 key: findings formal disciplinary process - relative likelihood of disabled staff entering the formal capability process as measured by entry into the formal capability procedure

In 2020, there was a 4.01 likelihood of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff entering our disciplinary process. These metric measures specifically staff going through performance management capability processes as per the Trust performance management policy. It does not include staff going through ill health related capability processes.

Over the period covered by this report, two cases of disabled staff entered the Trust formal capability process out of 26.

Metric 4 key findings: percentage of disabled compared to non-disabled staff experiencing bullying harassment or abuse

This metric compares the experiences of disabled and non-disabled staff experiencing bullying and harassment or abuse from:

  1. patients/Service users, their relatives or other members of the public
  2. managers
  3. other colleagues

In addition, the standard also looks at the comparison between reported issues of harassment bullying or abuse by Disabled and non-disabled staff. Overall 38% of our staff (who responded to the 2020 staff survey) said they had experienced BHA from patients, slightly higher than the proportion (34%) of non-disabled staff and higher than the England average of 33.8% (2019).

Bullying, Harassment and Abuse Disabled staff 2019 to 2020

Bully, harrassment, and abuse
Patients 36% 34% 38% 34%
Manager 27% 16% 27% 16%
Colleagues 33% 24% 31% 22%
Reported 47% 49% 43% 47%

Metric 6 key findings: percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties

Across the Trust 64% of Disabled staff and 71% of non-disabled staff stated that they felt pressured by their manager to come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties. a difference of 5%. When comparing our performance with other trusts in the NWL ICS percentages of Disabled staff who reported being pressured by their managers ranged from 15% to 61.3%.

Metric 5 key findings: Percentage of staff believing that their organisation provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.

Overall, 59% of disabled staff who responded to the 2020 staff survey felt that the Trust provided equal opportunities for career progression or promotion compared to 74% of non-disabled staff.

Metric 7 key findings: percentage of disabled staff compared to non-disabled staff saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.

There have been marginal improvements from 31.5% in 2018 to 32.4% in the reporting year, in the proportion of disabled people who stated they were satisfied with the extent to which the Trust values their work.  This compares with the figures for non-disabled staff with LTC who have seen a 2% year on year increase from 44.9% in 2018 to 48.7% in 2020.  The figure for both groups of staff is slightly below the national average figures.

Metric 8 key findings: percentage of disabled staff saying their employer has made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.

Sixty-six percent of disabled staff said that the Trust had made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them carry out their work. Again data for this metric has been drawn from Staff Survey findings 2020. A review of arrangements for reasonable adjustment (term used by the Trust and many work places) issues from initiating adjustments range from manager inaction, challenges with timely procurement and IT barriers. One example saw the Trust take eighteen months to install much needed software that would enable the individual carry out their role.

Metric 9 key finding: NHS staff survey and the engagement of disabled people

These engagement scores is based on composite data drawn from the NHS staff survey 2020. This is an aggregate of staff involvement, motivation and advocacy. Despite the Trust’s statistically significant improvement (7.0) on this metric in 2020, Disabled staff reported as less engaged.

  • Overall, Disabled staff scored an engagement score of 6.4 compared to 7.1 for non-disabled staff
  • The highest scores for Disabled staff were in NWL ICS trusts

Metric 9b: Key findings: has your organisation taken action to facilitate the voices of your disabled staff to be heard?

The Trust responded positively to this question as since its last WDES report, it had actively put in place initiatives to engage with its Disabled staff, listening to and recognising their experiences. However we acknowledge that the Trust needs to do a great deal more to address the barriers that may impact on staff experiences in the workplace and ultimately their ability to deliver high-quality patient care for all. Over the next few months the Trust will develop the Disability Inclusion Network Work plan and hold a number of staff events through which it will draw upon and harness the insights of Disabled people within our workforce. Activities which will be at the heart of the inclusion agenda outlined in the Trust Equality Diversity and Inclusion Strategy.

Metric 10 key findings: percentage difference between the organisation’s board voting membership and its organisation’s overall workforce

The board representation of the Trust is outlined below (Table 1). Overall, 100%1% of Board members are non-disabled. This is -2% lower than the percentage of Disabled staff in the whole workforce population. Similarly, both non-executive board members hand and executive board members reported 0% disabled representation.

In this metric the data is disaggregated: by voting membership of the Board and by Executive membership of the Board. 

  • Overall in the last two years of reporting there has been a -2% difference between total Board members with a disability compared to the staff known to have a disability. This is compared to 4.8% non-clinical, 1.9% clinical 8C-vsm and 0.78% consultant workforce declaring a disability.
  • Across acute trusts 2.5% of board members at mental health trusts were known to be disabled, compared to 1.7% at ambulance trusts.
Trust board vs overall workforce: disabilities
  Disabled Non-disabled Unknown
Overall 0 100% 0
Voting 0 100% 0
Non-voting 0 100% 0
Executive 0 100% 0
Non-executive 0 100% 0
Overall workforce 2% 71% 27%

Help us improve our website. How useful was this page?

Help us improve our website. How useful was this page?