We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the Proposal for Change in the Student Wellbeing Service and the manner in which the consultation process has been managed.
This proposal poses a significant risk to our students. The proposed cuts to key front-line, student-facing roles, and the elimination of Wellbeing Access Advisors, in favour of increasing specialist services, are alarming and unnecessary. As you have assured us, this is not a budgetary decision, to cut costs by a certain date: the pace of change is not mandated by any clear and present financial considerations.
Reducing the number of Student Wellbeing Service and Wellbeing Access staff — Student Wellbeing Advisers, Student Wellbeing Managers and Access Managers; Deputy Heads of Student Wellbeing — is not only unnecessary but is also detrimental to our students.
We recognise that there is always scope to create a better Service for our students. Wellbeing Service staff are willing and able to advise on how to improve the Service. However, without clear and convincing evidence to justify these reductions in Wellbeing Service staff, it is inexcusable to diminish or change the support available to our students.
Reducing Student Wellbeing Service staffing, cutting Student Wellbeing Access Advisors and Managers, and creating generic Wellbeing Service roles for those Wellbeing Service staff dismissed, will dimmish the Service.
For example:
- Fewer staff to engage and support students.
- Wellbeing Service staff’s participation in working groups and skills-sharing activities has been cut in the proposed ‘new’ Service. Although this could form part of staff’s ‘personal development’ time (also cut), the Service will be less able to contribute to University projects and groups.
- Wellbeing Service staff will be unable to participate or engage ‘Professional Behaviours’ for University of Bristol staff, promote the work of the Service, attend Required to Withdraw (RTW) meetings, attend events (Global Lounge events, Sexual Violence Awareness stalls, Various outreach events, Case Review Meetings with Schools, early intervention meetings between students and senior tutors)
Student safety is the primary concern for Wellbeing Service staff. It is for this reason we note that the proposal has not adequately considered the time for appointments and appointment follow-up. The risk of not adequately undertaking this vital triage work is not only a risk to our students’ health, but risk to the University, if this work is not undertaken with due care and quality due to insufficient time for the job.
The current envisaged proposal expects an appointment follow-up will take 15 minutes at the busiest points of the academic year.
15 minutes is not enough.
It will lead to information getting missed, students having appointments delayed or cancelled, and communication with schools being overlooked
Anecdotally, staff have found that a 60-minute appointment with a student requires 60 minutes of administration (writing up case notes, preparing for the meeting, referrals etc.). In the proposal for the new Service, casework and follow-up appointment times have been amalgamated and not separated out, resulting in fewer follow-up appointments available when casework demands increase.
This means that it is likely that advisers will hold 11-15 appointments with students each week. With the reduction in FTE, this will be lower than what is currently offered and will not meet demand. The result will be a backlog and increased waiting times.
It should be noted Wellbeing Service staff are still waiting on a reply to our request for a copy of the risk assessment. We have not yet seen evidence in this regard.
By filling out the proposed Self-Referral form, student’s voices will be lost.
Students have reported that they feel better once present at a Wellbeing Service appointment, more so than when they completed the support request form. It is therefore beneficial for students for Service staff to meet with them, as well as filling our the self-referral form. This is helpful to tailor support to ensure students to avoid repeat use of the Service and to take into account how students have progressed or not since making the appointment
Wellbeing Service staff’s personal development time, a key requirement of all University’s role, has been cut to 1 hour per month in the proposed new Service. There are times of the year when this is not possible at all (e.g. during peak demand), and this time can be accumulated and used during off-peak periods. Undertaking professional development only during ‘off peak’ periods also increases a risk of a workforce that is slow to respond to changing student need. For instance, if a presenting theme of student need becomes more prevalent, by this model SWS staff would have to wait to upskill and be constantly on a back-foot.
While less of a priority than student appointments or casework, it is an important part of developing a functioning, sustainable and resilient Wellbeing Service team that embodies the values and activities we are trying to encourage students to adopt. It is not possible for these activities to take place during the quieter summer months, as this is one of the only times staff are able to take annual leave, making it difficult to book training or development days as a team.
- The University Mental Health Charter says ‘Any genuine whole–university approach should consider staff and student wellbeing as inextricably linked and supportive of the other’ (p.45).
- The University Mental Health Charter says that a principle of good practice is ‘Universities ensure staff feel able to discuss their own mental health and wellbeing and have access to effective, accessible support and proactive interventions to help them improve their own mental health and wellbeing’ (p.46).
- The University Mental Health Charter says that a principle of good practice is ‘Universities enable staff to adopt and maintain healthy lifestyle and workplace behaviours.’ (p.46)
By deskilling and devaluing staff, we are putting student experience at risk. The reduction in FTE, resulting loss of approximately 15 colleagues and going through a stressful and difficult restructure process will have a negative impact on those staff members who remain.
Staff cannot effectively help students when their own mental health may have deteriorated. Staff are already under a large amount of stress attempting to make this unsafe change work, dealing with profound staffing and resourcing shortages. As already demonstrated in the 2023-24 academic year, recruitment activities to back-fill staff are timely and disruptive to both existing staff and to delivery of the service to students. As much as is possible should be done to minimise the risk of staff turnover.
It has also been claimed that the current consultation on the proposed changes would be an iterative process. As of yet, we have only seen one revised version of the proposal during the consultation period and have not been given time to consider the second version of the proposed Wellbeing Service structure. Staff have raised concerns through the pathways you have indicated throughout the consultation process, these are so numerous that there would not be an effective way to read, consider and implement them within the timescale you have set for yourself (6th – 14th June).
The consultation process itself has been flawed from the outset. For example, staff currently working in the Student Wellbeing Service have been asked to provide a counterproposal. This expectation is neither fair nor feasible. The reasons are as follows:
Time Constraints: Despite repeated requests, an extension to the consultation period has been denied outright. This refusal has left staff with insufficient time to develop a well-considered counterproposal or to be actively engaged in any sort of iterative process. Additionally, the provision of data, information, and responses to questions raised during this process has been consistently delayed. Deadlines have been missed, leaving staff without adequate time to consider the proposal thoroughly. This lack of timely information has further hindered the ability to respond effectively.
Lack of Information: Staff have not been provided with the complete information necessary to fully understand the rationale behind the proposal. Without this critical data, it is impossible to create an accurate and comprehensive counterproposal.
Structural Issues: The proposal is fundamentally flawed in numerous ways. Attempting to address all these issues within the constraints provided is not feasible. Moreover, staff are not employed nor compensated to devise new organisational structures or to think at high, strategic levels. Nevertheless, staff are engaging with this process to ensure that student safety remains at the forefront of any changes made.
In light of these concerns, we propose the following actions:
Scrap the Current Proposal: We request that the current proposal be abandoned. The consultation process should be paused to allow for the development of a more thoughtful and safer plan for how the Student Wellbeing Service is run.
OR
Limited Implementation: Alternatively, if you are determined to proceed to implement a change by the next academic year, we suggest that a new, safe model is designed in direct consultation with staff and is actioned gradually or on a limited basis. This should not involve any reduction in current staff levels. Instead, a recruitment freeze should be implemented. This approach would ensure the safety of both students and staff while allowing for an ethical and gradual reduction in staff levels, if necessary. It would also provide you with the time needed to refine the specifics of the proposal, addressing the gaps and issues identified.
In conclusion, we urge you to reconsider the proposed changes and the way they are being implemented. Our primary concern is the wellbeing and safety of our students, and we believe that the current proposal, as it stands, jeopardizes both. We look forward to your prompt and thoughtful response to these serious concerns.
Signed:
The Joint Trade Unions and Staff in the Student Wellbeing Service
Additional information
Case studies
1: Student called Student Services – Put through to Access who could provide a more thorough conversation & check risk/ make suitable suggestions. Student booked into a P2 slot. Student didn’t attend, called the student at the time of appointment and they said it wasn’t a good time. Tried to rearrange – No contact.
2: Student self-referred, contacted via email by Wellbeing Access with info and advising that a SWA (Student Wellbeing Adviser) would be in touch. IA invite sent, confirmed available, student didn’t attend. They were called during the appointment time, no answer. Text and called since, no answer.
3: Student self-referred, contacted via email by Wellbeing Access with info and advising that a SWA would be in touch. Following 2 x emails and a text, student confirmed availability for a IA.
4: Student self-referred, contacted via email by Wellbeing Access advising they would call him. Attempted contact, not available, information sent by WA. Attempted contact by Admin to book appointment, no answer. SWA emailed and text offering appointment – student confirmed availability for IA. Cancelled IA on the day, still trying to rearrange.
5: Student self-referred, contacted via email by Wellbeing Access advising they would call student. Attempted contact by Admin, no answer. Allocated to SWA, emailed student twice to arrange IA, no contact.
Staff comments:
There hasn’t been a case I’ve had since starting in the team in February where I haven’t been grateful for the information received either from the student in their wellbeing request form and/or from the Wellbeing Access team making contact with the student to either gather more evidence or put immediate safeguards in place. Having the information ahead of a meeting greatly improves the service being given to the student as the Advisor will be prepared and have appropriate support options ready, as well as reducing the need to ask as many probing questions in the initial meeting. The time taken to gather evidence in this initial meeting will likely increase the number of follow up appointments needed. Having the information at the point of an appointment being booked is essential, and in turn decreases the pressure on the Advisor, improves the service to students and reduces the need for follow up appointments.
A key thing for me is that they haven’t included adequate time after each appointment to complete the case work associated with it. So, after each appointment I will as a minimum write up notes form the meeting and send the student an email. The proposal adds sending a redacted email to the school. In cases beyond the minimum, I might, write an email to a Senior Tutor/Personal Tutor etc, write and send a patient note, make a referral to an outside service e.g. Nilaari, write and submit a CAM referral for the student to be considered for counselling etc. These are all fairly standard. In more extreme cases I might need to write a FtS/StS referral or risk assessment.
That many appointments in one day will undoubtedly see people having to stay late after shift finish to complete notes & follow-up. Meaning TOIL and/or overtime will need to be claimed. Especially when you cannot predict what follow-up you’ll need with a student & what risk will need to be managed. I’ve seen it happen in Resi & it created complete staff burnout, exhaustion & extremely high staff sickness levels. It was eventually addressed & noted 4 was the absolute maximum in a day (just a service-level agreement at the time). Staff frequently didn’t have time to take breaks either.
bristolucu 