Four Issues Shaping the Future of the Health Practitioner In late September 2025—specifically September 22–24—New York City became a platform for debate on the future of the health workforce as the “Health Without Borders: Building a Global Health Workforce for the Future” forum, organized by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS), ran in parallel with the UN General Assembly. This was not a routine side event. It was a bold strategic initiative aimed at confronting some of the most pressing threats facing health systems worldwide. Under one roof, leaders of global health organizations, policymakers, researchers, and medical-education institutions met in an open dialogue about the future of the health practitioner. At its core, the event called for reframing health work as a shared human endeavor—not merely a national file. The challenges faced by a clinician in Africa, a nurse in Asia, or a health worker in the Middle East are increasingly intertwined—from education and training to migration and psychological resilience. The message is simple: we will not achieve ‘health for all’ unless we work together to build the skills and teams that can carry this mission in the coming years. To capture the depth of this milestone event, the October issue explores four key themes discussed in New York — fundamental challenges that are redefining the very nature of healthcare practice worldwide, both now and in the years ahead. | | | Issue One: The Shortage of Health Practitioners The latest WHO estimates put the global health workers at more than 70 million. Yet the path to universal health coverage remains threatened by a projected shortfall of around 11.1 million health workers by 2030, concentrated largely in low- and middle-income countries. Post-pandemic reviews led the WHO to revise the 2020 shortfall from 15.4 million to 14.7 million in 2023, with the gap narrowing—though still about 11.1 million by 2030 if current policies persist. Progress is uneven across regions and specialties. By profession, the world is on track to face a nursing shortfall of roughly 4.5 million by 2030, with the largest gaps in Africa, South-East Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean, and parts of Latin America. Several forces drive the deficit: population growth, a shifting disease burden, and aging societies that demand more care than education and hiring pipelines can supply. WHO reviews in 2022 warned that, without accelerated training capacity, the gap between population needs and workforce numbers will widen. Flows of talent are also uneven: some countries gain, others lose. Limited training capacity in many low and middle income countries magnifies the problem; seats in health colleges and teaching hospitals are insufficient to produce the numbers and profiles needed. Burnout and poor working conditions further deepen shortages, with post-COVID pressures pushing workers—especially nurses—out of the field. | | | The WHO underscored that COVID-19 exhausted the workforce and cost many lives, revealing shortages and maldistribution that, if left unchanged, will culminate in a significant global deficit by 2030—especially in low-income countries. This is not a statistic; it is a direct threat to universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. Ultimately, the quality of a health system is measured by the capability and distribution of its practitioners—not by beds and buildings. Depth matters, too: deficits in specific fields (like nursing) and uneven migration flows “hollow out” some regions. International bodies are therefore pivoting to tighter planning and financing aligned to the true magnitude of the gap; expanding quality training via more seats and modernized curricula geared to primary care and chronic disease; and strengthening clinical training with proper supervision and Quality assurance. Work conditions must improve competitive pay, clear promotion pathways, job security, mental-health support, a safe environment, and housing/transport—especially for those in remote areas. Many countries are redesigning care teams—task-sharing and multidisciplinary models that raise productivity. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data suggest rebalancing roles between physicians and nurses is pivotal. The challenge persists—and it demands disciplined global coordination, or the pressure will intensify everywhere. | | | Issue Two: Toward Internationally Aligned Practitioner Classifications Even amid shortages, cross-border mobility is rising fast. A patient in Riyadh, London, or Nairobi is no longer treated only by local hands. Medical talent crosses continents—bringing with it questions about professional classification and recognition. How can doctors, nurses, or physiotherapists prove competence and practice across countries without getting trapped in bureaucratic loops and redundant assessments? The question is urgent as the “geography” of the health workforce shifts. According to OECD reporting, the number of migrant doctors and nurses in member states has grown by about 60% in a single decade. This “white-coat migration” is no longer a simple South-to-North current; it’s a complex web that includes South-South, North-South, and intra-regional flows. Medical education is also transnational: students from Asia and Africa train in Europe or Australia, then move again—further complicating recognition of credentials. A core barrier for mobile practitioners is the lack of a unified framework for classifying qualifications. A nurse with a bachelor’s from the Philippines may face additional testing in Canada; a specialist physician from an Arab country may need months to prove competence in a neighboring state despite equivalent clinical experience. The problem is not only disparate education and training standards; it’s the absence of a shared professional language—an international framework for defining competencies and skills. The result: wasted human capital, delays in deploying talent where it’s needed most, and high administrative and financial costs. Standardizing certificates and professional accreditation is among the most complex undertakings in modern health systems. Multiple regulatory requirements collide with privacy concerns and administrative burdens, making it difficult to establish a single, seamless verification system. Standardization does not erase local specificity. It builds an architecture for mutual recognition—akin to the Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact in the U.S., which allow practice across more than 40 states with a single license. At the global level, WHO, the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the OECD are working to harmonize data and norms to track mobility, foster cross-border recognition, streamline registration and licensing, and anchor ethical international recruitment. The goal is a balance: protect national systems while safeguarding professionals’ right to mobility and dignified work—so migration doesn’t become hemorrhage, and protection doesn’t morph into stifling bureaucracy. | | | Digital solutions are accelerating progress: credentialing is moving online with verified source checks and portable digital profiles for practitioners that can be shared across borders. Current WHO priorities include common standards for recognition, international monitoring of mobility, capacity-building for workforce planning in developing countries, and spreading innovative policies for fair recruitment and knowledge exchange. Proposals also include a Global Policy Lab to test practical fixes—simplified licensing, standardized e-credentials, and bilateral exchange models. The horizon points toward a Global Health Professional Passport—defining identity by verified competence and career performance, not paper alone. It will take years of coordination, but technology and a growing consensus on fairness make it increasingly plausible. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is a human, economic, and ethical project—vital to a more efficient, equitable, and crisis-ready global health system. It was one of the headline issues in New York this September. | | | Issue Three: Practitioner Resilience Increased attention is being given to the mental health of health workers. The people who care for others are themselves under heavy pressure, which harms their own physical and mental health. This, in turn, affects the quality of care they provide and the stability of the whole health system. Health workers operate in an environment of relentless hours and intense emotional strain. Clinicians confront life-and-death situations daily—resuscitations, loss, and high-stakes decisions under time and resource constraints. Studies repeatedly highlight burnout—a syndrome of physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion from chronic workplace stress—formally recognized by the WHO in 2019. It manifests in three dimensions: severe exhaustion, depersonalization or emotional detachment, and diminished professional efficacy. Practitioners feel drained, demoralized, and doubtful of their impact. Compassion fatigue—psychological wear from sustained exposure to patient suffering—adds to the risk: faster emotional depletion, withdrawal, declining performance, and pervasive negativity. These are not individual failings; they arise from the system-person interaction: workload, understaffing, long shifts without protected breaks, limited managerial and psychological support, and a professional culture that glorifies stoicism and stigmatizes help-seeking. COVID-19 was a breaking point, exposing the fragility of mental-health supports. U.S. and European data showed rates of depression and anxiety nearly doubled among health workers during the pandemic. Burnout prevalence climbed from roughly 30% (2018) to around 40% (2022)—a pandemic-driven spike that lays bare the broader pressure. The fallout is systemic: higher clinical error rates, reduced empathy, more unplanned absences, lower job satisfaction—and subtler effects such as isolation, irritability, and reliance on stimulants or sedatives. Solutions exist. Evidence shows psychological resilience—not emotional suppression, but adaptive recovery—can be cultivated through training and practice: realistic optimism, early emotion recognition, problem-focused coping, social support, and self-care. Short, weekly sessions held at the workplace—on topics like fear, stress, or self-care—have helped health workers feel more supported and less stressed. Cognitive-behavioral methods are also being used in clinics to help people change negative thoughts and improve how they cope with pressure. Simple tools such as breathing exercises, peer support, and mentoring help reduce loneliness and build confidence. But the fix can’t be purely individual. Organizational reforms—lighter workloads, protected rest, integrated mental-health services, confidential access to care—and early resilience training in medical and nursing schools are crucial. Persistent barriers include stigma, time pressures, and competing demands. The takeaway: prevention is a system, not a session. When practitioners are allowed to care for themselves, they care better for others. That is the spirit of medicine. | | | Issue Four: The Future of Medical Education Medical education is undergoing a decisive transformation to prepare practitioners for 21st-century care. As healthcare evolves, training must keep pace—embracing the digital revolution, meeting modern patient expectations, and responding to system pressures. The answers require international collaboration and comprehensive reform. Advanced technologies are now integral: VR/AR and AI enable interactive learning, from high-fidelity surgical simulation and 3D anatomy to virtual clinical decision-making—without patient risk. AI personalizes learning with instant feedback and tailored recommendations. Many scholars advocate a hybrid, learner-centered model—shifting from content delivery to capability building—where technology is a means to deepen understanding and organize knowledge amid today’s information flood. Education is also moving interprofessional. Since modern care is team-based, medical students increasingly train alongside nursing, pharmacy, and allied health students—fostering collaboration and role clarity. This supports a whole-person care philosophy that weaves physical, psychological, and social dimensions into clinical reasoning. High-fidelity simulation is becoming a pillar: students trained on realistic digital or robotic models acquire skills faster and retain them longer, make better rapid decisions, and commit fewer clinical errors—while practicing without risk to patients. Learning no longer ends at graduation. Lifelong learning is now part of professional identity: e-courses, virtual conferences, and micro-credentials keep clinicians current. WHO emphasizes that investment in continuous education is essential to prepare the workforce for future threats—from pandemics to new therapeutics. The road ahead blends innovation with humanity. Technology won’t replace the clinician; it will reshape the role. The practitioner of the future is not a mere operator of procedures but a partner in the patient’s journey—equipped with integrated technological and human skills. Effective medical education fuses knowledge, skill, and values into a single framework that prepares practitioners not only to practice—but to lead change in healthcare. These debates—resilience, classification, shortages, and educational reform—are not “theoretical.” They are the load-bearing pillars of the health sector. Any instability translates directly into patient outcomes—across Saudi Arabia and the world. Within this landscape, Saudi Arabia is emerging as a new actor in global health diplomacy, advancing a strategic vision to leverage national medical expertise for positive international impact. By convening global forums like Health Without Borders in New York, spearheading efforts to harmonize professional standards, and driving recognition and licensing reforms, the Kingdom is building a growing network of strategic partnerships that extends beyond its borders—to international organizations, academic institutions, and regulators across continents. This approach strengthens Saudi Arabia’s position as a source of knowledge and expertise—and signals a shift in the tools of soft power. Rather than relying solely on cultural or economic diplomacy, the Kingdom is elevating health as an instrument of human connection and international cooperation—one tied directly to well-being, social stability, and global health security. | | |
