Guide to reviewing and re-evaluating job descriptions for NHS staff

NHS JE Handbook

This guide explains how job descriptions (JDs) are reviewed and, where appropriate, how posts are re-matched or re-evaluated under the Agenda for Change Job Evaluation Scheme so the banding reflects the role requirements (not the individual).

Key point: Updating a JD and re-banding are related but not the same. A JD can be updated with no banding change. Banding can only change through the formal job matching / evaluation process.

⸻

Who this guide is for
• Staff employed on Agenda for Change terms and conditions in the NHS
• Line managers writing or updating JDs
• HR / Workforce / Pay teams supporting job evaluation and governance

Local titles vary (e.g., “Job Evaluation Team”, “AfC Team”, “Pay & Reward”, “Workforce Information”), but the steps are broadly the same.

⸻

Why job descriptions are reviewed

A well-written JD:
• Sets out the purpose of the post and the main duties and responsibilities
• Supports recruitment, induction, development, and performance conversations
• Provides the core evidence used for job matching/evaluation decisions.

The Job Evaluation Scheme exists to measure the skills, responsibilities and effort required by the job and allocate the appropriate band, supporting fairness and equal pay.

⸻

When a JD review might be needed

Routine triggers
• Regular housekeeping (e.g., annual review, recruitment refresh)
• Service changes (new pathway, new technology, new models of care)
• Team restructure or changes to reporting lines
• New statutory, governance, or safety requirements affecting the role

“This role has changed” triggers
• A sustained change in duties (not a temporary cover arrangement)
• Increased autonomy / decision-making or complexity
• Increased responsibility for people, budgets, specialist equipment, risk, or governance
• Material changes in physical/mental effort or working conditions

Organisations should have a clear way to identify and verify job changes, and disputes about whether a job has changed significantly are usually handled via local processes (e.g., grievance/arbitration).

⸻

What good looks like in a JD (for review and matching)

The Job Evaluation Handbook is clear that:
• There’s no single mandated format (local partnership agreement applies), but templates help consistency.
• JDs that are only competency-based (or based on the Knowledge and Skills Framework) are not helpful for matching, and KSF should not be used for job matching.
• JDs should not be written in “JE factor language” or in the national profile format (profiles are not JDs).
• Generic JDs must reflect the complete nature of the role; amending a generic JD may trigger a review.

⸻

The end-to-end process (JD review → potential re-band outcome)

Step 1 — Identify the need and agree the scope

Staff + manager discuss:
• What has changed (and since when)
• Whether changes are permanent and substantive
• Whether this is:
• JD update only (clarity/housekeeping), or
• A potential banding review (significant change/new post)

Step 2 — Update the JD (and person specification)

Use your local template. Keep it factual and role-focused:
• Purpose of the role
• Key responsibilities (what, why, and scope)
• Accountability and supervision
• Key relationships and communication demands
• Decision-making and autonomy
• Typical working environment and effort demands (where relevant)

For matching, the panel may also need extra information that isn’t normally in a JD (e.g., effort/environment). This can be gathered via a short questionnaire or jobholder/manager input.

Step 3 — Sign-off and submission

Typically:
• JD is agreed, signed and dated by postholder and manager (or authorised manager for vacant posts)
• Submitted to HR/AfC/JE team with supporting documents (see checklist below)

The handbook notes matching is based primarily on agreed, up-to-date JDs, with any local additional information agreed by jobholder and manager and recorded for audit. 

Step 4 — Decide the correct route: match to a profile or local evaluation

Under the Job Evaluation Scheme, banding is established by:
• Job matching to a national profile (where one fits), or
• Local evaluation where no suitable profile exists 

Step 5 — Panel consideration (partnership working)

A job matching panel should be run in partnership (management + staff-side), using trained practitioners, reaching consensus, and keeping an audit trail. 

Panels may:
• Confirm the match/evaluation based on evidence
• Ask written questions / request clarification
• Recommend that the JD be amended to reflect accurate information (with an audit trail) 

Step 6 — Outcome and implementation

Outcomes commonly include:
• No change to banding (JD updated for clarity)
• Confirmed banding via profile match
• Band change following match/evaluation (up or down, depending on assessed role requirements)
• Further work required (e.g., revised JD, more evidence, restructure clarification)

Step 7 — If you disagree: request a review (appeal)

If staff (individually or as a group) are dissatisfied with the outcome of matching/evaluation, they may request a review:
• The review must be requested within 3 months of notification.
• It should be conducted by a new panel, with the majority of members different from the original panel.
• The request must include written reasons and evidence showing where you disagree and why.

⸻

What to submit (practical checklist)

Most AfC/JE teams will ask for:
• Updated JD (signed/dated)
• Person specification
• Organisation chart(s) showing reporting lines and scope
• Summary of changes (e.g., tracked changes, “before vs after” bullets)
• Any local questionnaire / additional evidence requested (especially for effort/environment) 

Helpful supporting evidence (keep it factual):
• Typical caseload/throughput and complexity indicators
• Decision-making examples (what decisions you make independently)
• Responsibility scope (e.g., training, supervision, equipment, budgets)
• Communication requirements (e.g., difficult conversations, persuasion/negotiation)
• Governance/risk responsibilities

⸻

Common questions

“Can I apply for re-banding because I’m working hard / understaffed?”

The scheme evaluates the role requirements, not workload pressure or performance. Understaffing may justify a workforce review, but banding is determined through matching/evaluation evidence.

“Should I write my JD using the 16 JE factors?”

No. The handbook advises JDs should not follow the JE profile format or use JE factor terminology.

“What if my JD is generic and doesn’t reflect what I do?”

Generic JDs must adequately reflect the role; if amended, this may trigger a review. 

“Who oversees the scheme nationally?”

The scheme is maintained by the NHS Staff Council Job Evaluation Group, and resources are published via NHS Employers.

⸻

Where to get help
• Your line manager (first conversation about role change and JD accuracy)
• HR/Workforce/AfC Job Evaluation team (process, forms, panel timetables)
• Local Staff Side / Trade Union rep (support with evidence and review requests).