Inequitable barriers and opportunities for leadership and professional development, identified by early-career to mid-career allied health professionals

IntroductionInterprofessional leadership is essential to sustain the National Health Service (NHS) in pressured times, which should include the NHS's third largest clinical workforce in England: allied health professionals (AHPs) (AHPs as defined by NHS England: Art therapists; Dramatherapists; Music therapists; Dietitians; Occupational therapists; Operating department practitioners; Orthoptists; Osteopaths; Paramedics; Physiotherapists; Podiatrists, Prosthetists and Orthotists; Radiographers; Speech and language therapists). Therefore, a feasibility study was undertaken, to explore the views of AHPs working in early to mid-career positions, regarding the barriers and opportunities they encounter, in both leadership and career development.MethodsTwenty-seven participants, representing 8 of the 14 AHP professions across England, were interviewed across 10 focus groups.ResultsThematic analysis (TA) generated four themes, including the barriers and opportunities for AHP leadership development and career progression. Further TA identified three overarching themes: equitable and interprofessional leadership development; an equitable and structured AHP career pathway; and having AHP leaders at a strategical and/or very senior level. These overarching themes were subsumed under the umbrella category: equity of opportunity and voice. The AHPs, who were interviewed, reported inequitable access to both career and leadership development, compared with other professions, such as nurses, doctors and pharmacists.DiscussionFurther work is needed to ensure that interprofessional representation, within senior leadership levels, includes AHPs; which the data suggests would directly benefit all AHPs' leadership and career development. Recommendations for organisations to facilitate leadership and career development were developed from the TA and at a system-wide level. Further research would be beneficial to gather the views of the six AHP professions not interviewed in this study and from other organisations, such as independent practice. However, this feasibility study does attempt to represent the voices of AHPs, which can be lacking in both organisations and research.