I can understand why hiring managers might expect recruitment to be easier at the moment. UK vacancies are falling, and employers may be receiving more applications for some roles. It is tempting to assume that a larger pool of applicants should make vacancies easier to fill.
The latest Office for National Statistics estimate put UK vacancies at 691,000 between July and September 2026, down 21,000 from the previous quarter. It was the first time the estimate had fallen below 700,000 since February to April 2021. The ONS describes this as an early estimate, so the figure is best treated as an indication of the wider labour market rather than proof that every employer now has more suitable candidates to choose from.
For healthcare employers, that distinction matters. A quieter national jobs market does not automatically create more registered clinicians, experienced assessors or senior healthcare leaders who fit a particular brief.
More applications can create more work without creating more choice.
The CIPD’s 2026 Resourcing and Talent Planning Report supports this. Of the employers surveyed, 58% reported an increase in applications from unsuitable candidates, while only 33% saw an increase in suitable applications. More than half of the organisations that attempted to recruit experienced difficulty attracting candidates, particularly for skilled and senior positions. Meanwhile, 52% reported increased competition for well-qualified talent.
The number of CVs received is therefore a poor measure of whether a recruitment campaign is working. If those applications do not produce a credible shortlist, the underlying problem remains. A vacancy might attract 100 applications and leave a hiring manager with only two suitable people to consider. Another might attract ten applications and produce three strong candidates. The difference is not the volume of interest, but how closely that interest matches the requirements of the role.
Every healthcare role creates its own candidate market
Healthcare employers are rarely recruiting from one large, interchangeable pool of candidates. Depending on the vacancy, the realistic market may be shaped by professional registration, clinical or assessment experience, specialist knowledge, leadership responsibilities, location, travel requirements, working patterns and salary.
Someone might meet most of the requirements but be unable to work in the location. Another candidate might have the right registration and broad experience but lack the specialist background the service needs. Every additional requirement narrows the potential market. Some restrictions are essential for safe and effective practice. Others have been carried forward from an old job description or built around the profile of the previous postholder.
Employers need to distinguish between the two.
When I look at a difficult-to-fill vacancy, I want to understand where the process is breaking down. Are we attracting the wrong people? Are suitable candidates withdrawing because of the salary or working arrangements? Are the essential criteria ruling out people who could perform the role? Or is the search simply not reaching the right candidates?
Those are different problems, and they need different solutions.
A professional register is not a candidate shortlist
The Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register reached a record 867,935 professionals by March 2026. However, annual growth slowed from 3.3% in 2024-25 to 1.7% in 2025-26. The number of UK-educated professionals joining the register also fell, while internationally educated professionals accounted for a smaller share of new joiners.
These figures provide important workforce context, but the size of the register does not tell an employer how many people are available for a particular vacancy. Registration establishes professional eligibility. It does not tell an employer who is looking for work, who has the relevant service experience, who lives within a realistic distance or who would consider the proposed hours and salary.
Registered does not necessarily mean available, interested or suitable.
The medical workforce illustrates a similar distinction. General Medical Council research found that only 13% of internationally qualified doctors who joined the UK register through the PLAB route in 2024 had a connection to a designated body within six months. That compares with 20% for the 2023 cohort and 26% for the 2021 and 2022 cohorts.
The data use designated-body connection as an indicator of connection to UK medical practice rather than direct confirmation of employment. The report also says it is too early to judge the longer-term outcome for the 2024 cohort.
These figures do not tell us why an individual doctor had not established that connection or whether they later did so. They reinforce the wider point that professional registration and practical availability for employment are not the same thing.
A doctor may hold a licence to practise without meeting the specialty, seniority, location or service requirements of a particular vacancy. At the same time, an employer may be searching too narrowly, offering an uncompetitive package or relying on an advert that does not reach the relevant people.
Sometimes there is a genuine shortage of people with the required experience. In other cases, the criteria, package or recruitment method are making an already restricted market harder to access. Until those possibilities have been tested, it is difficult to know where the real problem lies.
Test the role before blaming the market
Before assuming that a cooler labour market should make a healthcare vacancy easier to fill, I would look at five things:
- Who can genuinely perform the role? Confirm which registrations, qualifications and experience are essential. Challenge criteria that are preferred, inherited or convenient rather than necessary.
- How many of those people are realistic candidates? Consider location, hours, salary, employment model and career stage. A theoretical candidate pool is not the same as a group of people you can realistically reach.
- Why would somebody move? Look at the opportunity from the candidate’s perspective. What does the role offer that they do not already have? A strong job title or a description of the organisation as an excellent employer is not necessarily enough.
- What can change if the market is too narrow? Review salary, flexibility, location, timescales and non-essential criteria. If the brief remains unchanged, reposting the same advert is unlikely to produce a fundamentally different result.
- Which recruitment method fits the vacancy? Advertising can work well where there is an active supply of suitable candidates. Specialist and senior appointments may need targeted research, market mapping and direct engagement as well.
I would rather tell an employer early that a brief is restricting the market than spend three months generating activity around a vacancy that was unlikely to attract the right person. That is not talking a client out of recruitment. It is giving the organisation a better chance of getting it right.
The response should also depend on what the recruitment data actually show. If a vacancy attracts a large number of unsuitable applications, the problem may lie in the advert, targeting, screening or clarity of the criteria. If it attracts very little relevant interest, the salary, working arrangements, search strategy or requirements may need to change.
Too many unsuitable applications and no suitable applications are not the same problem. They should not receive the same solution.
A quieter labour market can make some vacancies easier to fill. Fewer competing opportunities and greater availability may work in an employer’s favour, but national figures cannot tell us whether a particular healthcare role should now be straightforward to recruit.
Recruiters need to challenge their assumptions too. “There aren’t enough candidates” should not become a convenient explanation whenever a search stalls. The salary, location, flexibility, essential criteria and sourcing method all need testing before the market takes the blame.
The useful question is whether enough suitably qualified people can perform the role, would consider the proposition and can be reached through the method being used. That is where recruitment should add value: helping employers understand the actual market, challenge the brief and decide what needs to change.
If your healthcare vacancy isn’t producing a credible shortlist, iGo can help identify what needs to change and put the right recruitment approach in place. Contact us here to discuss the role.
Sources and further reading
- Office for National Statistics, Vacancies and jobs in the UK: October 2026
- Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Resourcing and Talent Planning Report 2026
- Nursing and Midwifery Council, The NMC Register: 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026
- General Medical Council, The State of Medical Education and Practice in the UK: Workforce Report 2025