I am cycling from London to Brighton to raise money for LSHTM’s scholarship fund. I don’t charge for my articles, so please sponsor me if you can by clicking here
This time of year is when my social media feed is full of posts from universities celebrating graduations, and maybe this article should come with a health warning if you are a newly qualified nurse. A newly qualified nurse, after all, should be good news for a health system.
Here is someone who has signed up for a healthcare role, completed placements, passed assessments and survived the exams. They have learned enough to be safe at the start of practice and are ready to join the workforce. Not ready to be left alone with entire wards of people, but ready to start a career.
In a system short of nurses, this should be a simple transition from university to workplace.
In England, newly registered nurses have been reporting difficulty finding their first posts. So where are the jobs for newly registered nurses?
Students and new graduates have organised, complained, and asked why they have reached the end of training, only to find that the system that told them they were needed cannot always offer them work.]
But this is where the issues really start, and, as is common, it begins with language and how it is used. We use words like ‘shortage’ when what we really mean is a planning failure.
A shortage sounds like a simple problem of numbers, almost like an accident. Country X has too few nurses, so it educates more. Somehow we then assume it will be able to recruit them and, with another leap of faith, retain them.
This week, in discussions with various people, I have arrived at the following sentence, which, in my view, should be universally accepted, but which seems not to be.
A health system can be short of nurses and still fail to employ the nurses it has just educated.
A hospital can be under huge pressure and still freeze posts; at a national level, it can invest in education and then lose the benefit because the funded role is not available at the end of the undergraduate process.
The official vacancy figures make the picture stranger. NHS vacancy statistics for England show that the registered nursing staff group, which includes midwives and health visitors, still had 21,643 vacancies in March 2026, a vacancy rate of 5.0%.
That is lower than the vacancy rates of recent years, and people will understandably point to it as an improvement.
A lower vacancy rate does not necessarily mean the system suddenly has enough nurses. Some posts may have disappeared altogether. Others may simply not be being recruited to because the money is not there.
This is the bit that becomes maddening for students, newly qualified nurses, and all those who support them.
We hear constantly that the NHS is short of nurses and that services are under pressure. Then a newly qualified nurse starts looking for a job and discovers there may not actually be one.
There is a version of this problem that is easy to blame on bureaucracy or local management, and some of it probably is, but the problem is larger than that.
Nursing workforce planning often treats education and employment as separate systems. Students move between these systems, carrying debt, expectation and a fair amount of idealism, and then discover that the pipeline is not really a pipeline. It is a set of loosely connected pipes, some of which end in a wall.
This matters because the first year after registration is a vulnerable point in a nursing career. A newly registered nurse is employed, but they are still learning how to be a nurse without the structures of student status around them. Confidence, judgement and working habits develop during this period, ideally with decent supervision and enough space to learn safely.
Leaving newly registered nurses in limbo is wasteful and risky. The longer people wait, the more they drift.
This is not only a UK problem. WHO’s 2026 report on the health workforce in Africa is alarmingly similar. The African region’s health workforce has grown from 4.3 million in 2018 to 5.72 million in 2024, but it still has only 46% of the health workers it needs. At the same time, WHO estimates that around 943,000 trained health workers were unemployed in 2024, while health systems remained understaffed.
Shortages and unemployment can coexist within the same system.
This should make us more careful whenever a country claims an ‘oversupply’ of nurses. The education of nurses matters, but it is not automatically a workforce strategy; what matters as much as production is absorption.
The result is a strange kind of waste: a country, a family, or a student pays to produce a health worker.
The health worker qualifies, yet the clinic can remain understaffed because there is no funded job for them, or because the salary attached to that job makes staying difficult. When another country offers a proper post and substantially more money, migration is hardly mysterious.
I am not arguing against migration. Nurses are not a stockpile owned by the state that educated them. People move for all sorts of fairly ordinary reasons: better pay, safety, family, further education, better working conditions, or simply the prospect of a more secure life.
In global health, we often describe health workforce problems as if they are mainly about supply. How many nurses are being educated? How many are on the register? How many are migrating? How many are retiring? These questions matter, but they do not tell us whether the system can absorb its numbers.
What matters is what happens after qualification. Can that nurse actually get a funded post, and will there be someone there to supervise them properly?
A preceptorship means little if the ward is so short-staffed that everyone is simply trying to get through the shift. The same applies to community and rural posts, particularly where inexperienced nurses are sent into difficult jobs with limited support. Then there are the more basic questions of career progression and whether the salary makes it financially possible to stay in the job.
Simply increasing student numbers does not solve any of those problems.
The practical answer is fairly obvious, although it costs money and is much less attractive politically than announcing another increase in student places. Planning cannot stop when someone enters nursing school. If governments increase student numbers, they need some idea of what the employment market will look like three years later and whether services will actually have the money and capacity to take those graduates.
In other words, workforce planning has to follow the nurse all the way to the ward, clinic or community team.
The uncomfortable truth is that the nursing shortage is not always a shortage of people willing to be nurses. Sometimes it is a shortage of funded jobs, safe roles, decent supervision and political willingness to pay for the workforce that governments claim to want.
A newly qualified nurse should be good news for a health system, but if the system cannot afford to hire them, the shortage was never just about numbers.