Re: 'New Nursing and Midwifery Council'

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Could I make two small but important suggestions ?

A. para21 & q17: as well as a duty of service/competent responsiblity

to patients and clients, both Health Visitors and School Nurses can

have a duty of service to a defined population (e.g. within a PCG or

school) or a defined community (e.g. gypsy travellers using the M11

or Kosovar refugees in Barking). Public health responsiblities are

never mentioned within the consultation document.

This also helps ensure that the 'right' sort of Health Visitor is

eventually on the Council. RCN care sadly little about public health,

although my 'brothers' at Unison are a bit more enlightened, but

electing from among professionals with an explicit public health

element to their contract/job description will bring in the sort of

practitioner with whom I suspect many Senate members could identify.

One-to-one caring roles are also important, and the unique evolution

of HV & SN practice within the NHS has been to combine skills in both

spheres: this can hold true whether the HV works mainly with children

or the elderly and whether the SN works in a mainstream or a special

school.

B. Nowhere in the consultation is knowledge-based practice included

among the professional/educational standards. I would suggest a key

element of academic HV/SN practice is to develop and apply the

knowledge base for professional practice, and a key CPD requirement

for community practice is to keep up-to-date with current knowledge.

I am not at all suggesting the narrow Oxford approach to

'evidence-based medicine' but rather a fundamental responsiblity for

all caring professionals to seek the widest and deepest understanding

of their own work and their own clientele and to remain open to

improving their practice throughout their career of public service.

I hope that is a useful contribution, , from the HV/SN

" supporters' club " !

Woody.

> A reminder that the consultation document about the 'New Nursing and

> Midwifery Council' (available on

> http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/nmcconsult.pdf) is due in at the end of

> October. I was asked to do a response at work so I have built on

that

> basis to address some of my specific concerns about health visitor

> regulation in future. Shall we send a response from SENATE?

>

> I attach a still-incomplete draft. There are quite a few

questions in

> which I could do with some help, either because I did not have any

ideas

> or do not know enough details to respond. If anyone disagrees with

any

> aspects, or can suggest alternatives/additions, please let me know.

> Also, people can use this as a template for discussion in their own

> workplace and send in their own responses, either as individuals or

as

> groups of practitioners (eg, from a clinic base or particular team).

> In consultation exercises like this, the total number of responses

> saying a particular thing is counted, so it is better to send a

number

> than a single 'composite' response.

>

> Comments/questions on the whole thing, please, but especially these

> points:

>

>

> Question 7 asks: How can the aim of facilitating the new ways of

working

> described in paragraph 20 best be secured?

>

>

> Para 20 sets out `Four fundamental functions' that cannot

be transferred

> by Order to another body

>

> a) keeping the register of memebrs admitted to practice

> determining standards of education and training for admission to

> practice

> c) giving guidance about standards of conduct and performance

> d) adminstering procedures (including making rules) relating to

> misconduct, unfitness to practice and similar matters

>

>

> Para 21 sets out an `explicit and overarching duty on the

Council to:

> a. Treat the health and welfare of patients and clients as paramount

> b. Work in partnership with employers, educators and other

regualtory

> bodies

> c. Consult any groups with an interest in proposals to vary policy,

> standards and rules

> d. Have regard to differing considerations affecting the different

> professions and and spcialised groups within them

> e. Have regard to the interests in each UK country

>

> `Views are welcome on how the regulatory framework can best

support

> these aims in practice'

>

> Any suggestions?

>

>

> Questions 12

>

> Any other suggestions?

>

> Question 13 does anyone know how the replacement arrangements for

the

> National Boards and their validating functions will be achieved?

>

> Question 16

>

>

> Any other suggestions?

>

>

> Question 17

> My response to this question seems seems particularly weak, as only

> Unison explicitly recognises health visiting as a distinct

profession.

> The RCN actively oppose the idea of a separate register and

profession;

> the CPHVA want to retain the register only until there is a general

> register encompassing all community nurses, and they do not think

health

> visiting is a profession in its own right. So, presumably, if the

RCN

> or CPHVA are asked who should represent health visiting, they will

put

> forward people who want it regulated as a specialist part of

nursing.

>

> What do we advise the government to do about this, without looking

as if

> the profession is hopelessly divided (as some might think it is!!)?

>

> Question 19

>

> I ran out of steam here: further suggestions and comments?

[Guest guest]

Dear All

Having followed the discussion about the name of the new body, you may wish

to read the CPHVA's response to the consultation document. The CPHVA is

strongly against the dropping of Health Visiting from the title and I have

copied the relevant passage from our response below.

`It is the CPHVA's firm belief that the failure to acknowledge the separate

registration of Health Visitors in the title is illogical in that there is a

separate register and there is to be equal representation on the Council of

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors.

Therefore:-

THE CPHVA STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE NAME OF THE NEW COUNCIL CONTINUES TO

REFLECT HEALTH VISITING AND THAT THE TITLE SHOULD BE THE NURSING, MIDWIFERY

AND HEALTH VISITING COUNCIL.`

To see the response in full, visit our website at www.msfcphva.org and click

on CPHVA net and then `responses`. It's in the members' area so you will

need your CPHVA membership no. and the password which is published in

Community Practitioner or can be found by clicking on `help`.

For a paper copy please call me on the number below.

regards

Harvey

Harvey

Assistant Information Officer

Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association

40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD

Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034

****************************************************************************

*****

> Warning:

> Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use

> of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is

> legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this

> communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its

> attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this

> communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately.

****************************************************************************

*****

[Guest guest]

Dear n,

Good luck with your new recruits at Homerton !

The overall impact of changes in Cambridge (where I used to work for

Lifespan 1994-99)seems to have been poor for ex-HVs, for ex-SNs and

for Cambridgeshire children. I am sure one of your MSt students at

Homerton, Horner RHV, would confirm that. If you are replying

shortly to the national Consultation, you might want to contact Ann

Girling RHV, lead practitioner for Lifespan's remaining services,

nurse member of the South Cambs PCG and child & family clinician at

the Bourn Surgery. A 'double whammy' from clinical management &

professional education together might hit home better than a response

from Homerton alone (which could possibly be seen as having a vested,

commercial, interest).

Best wishes,

Woody.

> > > > A reminder that the consultation document about the 'New

Nursing and

> > > > Midwifery Council' (available on

> > > > http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/nmcconsult.pdf) is due in at the

end of

> > > > October. I was asked to do a response at work so I have built

on

> > > that

> > > > basis to address some of my specific concerns about health

visitor

> > > > regulation in future. Shall we send a response from SENATE?

> > > >

> > > > I attach a still-incomplete draft. There are quite a few

> > > questions in

> > > > which I could do with some help, either because I did not have

any

> > > ideas

> > > > or do not know enough details to respond. If anyone disagrees

with

> > > any

> > > > aspects, or can suggest alternatives/additions, please let me

know.

> > > > Also, people can use this as a template for discussion in

their own

> > > > workplace and send in their own responses, either as

individuals or

> > > as

> > > > groups of practitioners (eg, from a clinic base or particular

team).

> > > > In consultation exercises like this, the total number of

responses

> > > > saying a particular thing is counted, so it is better to send

a

> > > number

> > > > than a single 'composite' response.

> > > >

> > > > Comments/questions on the whole thing, please, but especially

these

> > > > points:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Question 7 asks: How can the aim of facilitating the new ways

of

> > > working

> > > > described in paragraph 20 best be secured?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Para 20 sets out `Four fundamental functions' that cannot

> > > be transferred

> > > > by Order to another body

> > > >

> > > > a) keeping the register of memebrs admitted to practice

> > > > determining standards of education and training for

admission to

> > > > practice

> > > > c) giving guidance about standards of conduct and performance

> > > > d) adminstering procedures (including making rules) relating

to

> > > > misconduct, unfitness to practice and similar matters

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Para 21 sets out an `explicit and overarching duty on the

> > > Council to:

> > > > a. Treat the health and welfare of patients and clients as

paramount

> > > > b. Work in partnership with employers, educators and other

> > > regualtory

> > > > bodies

> > > > c. Consult any groups with an interest in proposals to vary

policy,

> > > > standards and rules

> > > > d. Have regard to differing considerations affecting the

different

> > > > professions and and spcialised groups within them

> > > > e. Have regard to the interests in each UK country

> > > >

> > > > `Views are welcome on how the regulatory framework can best

> > > support

> > > > these aims in practice'

> > > >

> > > > Any suggestions?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Questions 12

> > > >

> > > > Any other suggestions?

> > > >

> > > > Question 13 does anyone know how the replacement arrangements

for

> > > the

> > > > National Boards and their validating functions will be

achieved?

> > > >

> > > > Question 16

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Any other suggestions?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Question 17

> > > > My response to this question seems seems particularly weak, as

only

> > > > Unison explicitly recognises health visiting as a distinct

> > > profession.

> > > > The RCN actively oppose the idea of a separate register and

> > > profession;

> > > > the CPHVA want to retain the register only until there is a

general

> > > > register encompassing all community nurses, and they do not

think

> > > health

> > > > visiting is a profession in its own right. So, presumably, if

the

> > > RCN

> > > > or CPHVA are asked who should represent health visiting, they

will

> > > put

> > > > forward people who want it regulated as a specialist part of

> > > nursing.

> > > >

> > > > What do we advise the government to do about this, without

looking

> > > as if

> > > > the profession is hopelessly divided (as some might think it

is!!)?

> > > >

> > > > Question 19

> > > >

> > > > I ran out of steam here: further suggestions and comments?

> > >

> > >

> > >