The 2026 Revised Women’s Health Strategy

A recent social media post from Dr Nighat Arif captures my thoughts about the 2026 revision of England’s Women’s Health Strategy, despite real ambition, there is a gap between promise and practice. That sums up how I feel.

The 2026 Revised Women’s Health Strategy is the government’s ten‑year plan to make NHS care for women faster, fairer and more patient centred. It names systemic bias in women’s care, commits to faster diagnostic pathways, and promises to centre lived experience. Those are important steps, but naming a problem is not the same as fixing it. Real change requires sustained, well‑resourced implementation, not lip service.

From my time as a gynaecology nurse in the NHS, I’ve seen both the worst of delays and the best of clinical compassion. From that vantage point, there are real reasons to welcome the strategy:

· It centres women’s voices. The commitment to Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) means services will be judged not only on activity but on how care felt and whether it improved health.

· It targets concrete gaps. Faster diagnostic pathways for menstrual and gynaecological conditions, clearer referral standards, and improved menopause care in primary care are practical levers that can shorten diagnostic delays and reduce suffering.

· It sits within a ten‑year plan. Meaningful change needs time, years of commitment and follow through.

· It prioritises research. A women centred research agenda can finally fill evidence gaps that have left many conditions under‑researched.

These are not symbolic gestures. If implemented properly, they can change clinical behaviour and patient outcomes.

I want to be honest because my perspective comes from both practice and personal experience. Clinical teams work incredibly hard with very limited resources. Nurses, GPs, midwives, junior doctors and consultants are committed and compassionate. As a patient my story is mixed. I received excellent care for endometriosis and adenomyosis: clinicians who listened, investigated properly, and treated me with respect made a real difference. I have also experienced misogyny and dismissal, being told symptoms were “normal”, being rushed through appointments, and feeling that my pain was not taken seriously. The most important point I want to raise is that I waited over 20 years for an official diagnosis. That delay cost me years of unnecessary suffering and uncertainty.

That combination, seeing the system from the inside and living through its failures, is why I welcome the strategy but insist on realism about delivery.

There are three practical constraints that will determine whether the strategy becomes real change:

· Workforce capacity. Faster pathways and specialist services need trained staff. Gynaecologists, specialist nurses, sonographers and community clinicians. Recruitment, training and retention must be explicit parts of delivery plans.

· Sustained funding. Pilots and demonstrator sites are useful, but national roll‑out requires years of protected funding. Short term quick fixes won’t mend structural shortages in diagnostics or community services.

· Inclusive measurement. PREMs and PROMs must reach diverse and marginalised women. If feedback systems only capture a narrow demographic, they risk entrenching inequalities rather than reducing them.

I want to be clear: critique of the system is not critique of the people who work in it. The strategy will only succeed if it supports staff with time, training and tools.

The Strategy also has clear implications for women at work and for the employers who support them. Faster diagnosis, better menopause care and more patient centred services don’t just improve health, they reduce long absences, boost productivity and make workplaces fairer. Employers should treat the Strategy as a prompt to update policies and provide menopause and gynaecological health training for managers. Viewing the Strategy as both a health and employment issue strengthens the case for the sustained funding, workforce planning and accountability needed to turn promises into everyday improvements. At KCMA we support women transitioning the menopause and we work directly with line managers and employers to put practical measures in place.

Change can happen, and that’s worth recognising. But real change should be sustained, resourced and accountable. We should celebrate the shift in priorities, but insist that it is followed by named timelines, protected funding and workforce plans. Otherwise, ambition risks becoming another well phrased policy that never reaches the bedside.