RE: notes from the voluntary sector

October 13, 2002

Hi Gill

Really great to hear from you and what improtant points you are making.

Having the title HV clearly allows you to be seen in the publics eye as safe and someone who has a valid role, And it is interesting the issue about how you see yourself, like me, as a health visitor rather than a nurse. Maybe there is something there about how we view the HV role and its function and how we see it fitting into the family of nursing - not swallowed up - but as an equal part but a part with a different focus and function.

As health visitors the policy is directing us along the multi disciplinary mulitagency route and we need to be using a title and performing a role that is known and understood to do this. One of the things I wander is that for many Hvs they themselves are unsure about the role and so would find the role you are doing and such work difficult - perhaps this is the reason for the comment I often get - we know we need to change and to do something different but do not know what to do.

The other issue you raise about confusion across the board if the title changed is also important and something not often voiced. I do sometimes wander if one of the problems with the CPHVA was the change in title which felt right at the time but maybe wasn't.

Keep in touch and let us know you are there from time to time.

Regards

Margaret

notes from the voluntary sector

It’s been 5 months since I left the NHS, although I still see myself as a HV (always will till the day I die I suspect!) and have continued to read the Senate correspondence. In the light of recent discussions about the register, my current role in the voluntary sector has made me even more aware how critical this protection is.

Firstly, the title HV is one that people recognise and understand. It serves as a short cut to saying a lot about us. They know and appreciate what we do and they know what to expect from us. I have become aware of how valuable this is, especially in the arena of multi-agency working and with Sure Start in particular. WE might have a history of struggling to define our role and to explain it to managers (and ourselves!) but my recent experience tells me that other agencies and service users don’t have this problem. Secondly, outside the NHS the health visiting profession is respected and valued. I have found that being a HV has opened many doors for me and people have been happy to help me gain information etc once they know I’m a HV.

Our title is part of everyday language, as stated in her article in CP. Leaving aside the huge issues eg, safeguarding education and training, the practical reality is that its demise would cause tremendous confusion across the board. What will be next I wonder …?

Moira I wish your centre lots of luck and I hope the enfranchised few (this no longer includes me, I’m afraid) will support you.

Gill

October 14, 2002

Hello Gill: it is great to hear from you. I am sure lots of people would

be really interested to hear about your new role. What are you doing? It

sounded like a very exciting opportunity. Health visiting is a

profession, not just a single job, so I am not at all surprised that you

still think of yourself as a health visitor (you are!) or that once

beyond the highly medicalised and disease focused NHS that the public

and potential colleagues are absolutely clear about our function and

skills.

It will be a challenge for the NMC to recognise the kind of work you do

as maintaining your competence in health visiting, so you can

re-register when the time comes. The growing multi-agency sector

involved with family health and parenting offers lots of opportunities

and potential recruits to the profession. best wishes

Gill Newell wrote:

> Its been 5 months since I left the NHS, although I still see myself

> as a HV (always will till the day I die I suspect!) and have continued

> to read the Senate correspondence. In the light of recent discussions

> about the register, my current role in the voluntary sector has made

> me even more aware how critical this protection is.

>

> Firstly, the title HV is one that people recognise and understand. It

> serves as a short cut to saying a lot about us. They know and

> appreciate what we do and they know what to expect from us. I have

> become aware of how valuable this is, especially in the arena of

> multi-agency working and with Sure Start in particular. WE might have

> a history of struggling to define our role and to explain it to

> managers (and ourselves!) but my recent experience tells me that other

> agencies and service users dont have this problem. Secondly, outside

> the NHS the health visiting profession is respected and valued. I have

> found that being a HV has opened many doors for me and people have

> been happy to help me gain information etc once they know Im a HV.

>

> Our title is part of everyday language, as stated in her article

> in CP. Leaving aside the huge issues eg, safeguarding education and

> training, the practical reality is that its demise would cause

> tremendous confusion across the board. What will be next I wonder & ?

>

> Moira I wish your centre lots of luck and I hope the enfranchised few

> (this no longer includes me, Im afraid) will support you.

>

> Gill

>

> .

October 14, 2002

Margaret, I agree with what you are saying to Gill, but whenever I

think about the name change of CPHVA I feel terrible about the broken

promises and way the original intention and purpose was distorted and

used in the most destructive way.

We persuaded members to accept it, because we really believed in

multi-disciplinary working and believed as an organisation in working

closely with our nursing (and other) colleagues in the community. We

did not want, as June puts it, 'to take our ball away' but to recognise

equal worth and value and work collaboratively in a situation where all

health workers were regarded as equally importantand worked together for

the good of the population they serve.

We knew that it was not about collapsing health visiting into nursing,

which is why nursing was not mentioned in the name. Any attempts to

insert that were (rightly) firmly rejected by the members. I do not

think it would have even got to a vote if nursing had been in the name

and CPHVA was accepted by a very narrow majority (I think it was 3 or 4

votes) because of the promises that were made. The outgoing chair,

Hagel, stood up after that vote and said " I promise you (members)

that, as an organisation we have heard that you do not want, as health

visitors, to become known as community nurses " Someone in the audience

said " or community practitioners! " and she said: " No, not community

practitioners either. I promise you that we will not forget that health

visitors are different and we will still continue to be the organisation

for health visitors: but we want to give the same good service and

welcome to our other members, like school nurses "

I was chair-elect but I have to admit that I failed in my efforts,

against vicious odds, to keep that promise. I am sorry and want to

apologise to the health visitors and CPHVA members I let down, but

cannot write any more, too upset.

Margaret Buttigieg wrote:

> Hi Gill

>

> Really great to hear from you and what improtant points you are making.

>

> Having the title HV clearly allows you to be seen in the publics eye

> as safe and someone who has a valid role, And it is interesting the

> issue about how you see yourself, like me, as a health visitor rather

> than a nurse. Maybe there is something there about how we view the HV

> role and its function and how we see it fitting into the family of

> nursing - not swallowed up - but as an equal part but a part with a

> different focus and function.

>

> As health visitors the policy is directing us along the multi

> disciplinary mulitagency route and we need to be using a title and

> performing a role that is known and understood to do this. One of the

> things I wander is that for many Hvs they themselves are unsure about

> the role and so would find the role you are doing and such work

> difficult - perhaps this is the reason for the comment I often get -

> we know we need to change and to do something different but do not

> know what to do.

>

> The other issue you raise about confusion across the board if the

> title changed is also important and something not often voiced. I do

> sometimes wander if one of the problems with the CPHVA was the change

> in title which felt right at the time but maybe wasn't.

>

> Keep in touch and let us know you are there from time to time.

>

> Regards

>

> Margaret

>

October 14, 2002

Excellent . You of all people should have no regrets. I was there also

and know that you have made the greatest personal sacrifices for our

profession. On this morning when child protection is again in the news those

who have undermined our profession should answer to every abused and

neglected child Who no longer sees a health visitor because they do not fit

into the correct catagory, the caseload is vacent or the health visitor is

off sick due to stress yours invisibly

Re: notes from the voluntary sector

> Margaret, I agree with what you are saying to Gill, but whenever I

> think about the name change of CPHVA I feel terrible about the broken

> promises and way the original intention and purpose was distorted and

> used in the most destructive way.

>

> We persuaded members to accept it, because we really believed in

> multi-disciplinary working and believed as an organisation in working

> closely with our nursing (and other) colleagues in the community. We

> did not want, as June puts it, 'to take our ball away' but to recognise

> equal worth and value and work collaboratively in a situation where all

> health workers were regarded as equally importantand worked together for

> the good of the population they serve.

>

> We knew that it was not about collapsing health visiting into nursing,

> which is why nursing was not mentioned in the name. Any attempts to

> insert that were (rightly) firmly rejected by the members. I do not

> think it would have even got to a vote if nursing had been in the name

> and CPHVA was accepted by a very narrow majority (I think it was 3 or 4

> votes) because of the promises that were made. The outgoing chair,

> Hagel, stood up after that vote and said " I promise you (members)

> that, as an organisation we have heard that you do not want, as health

> visitors, to become known as community nurses " Someone in the audience

> said " or community practitioners! " and she said: " No, not community

> practitioners either. I promise you that we will not forget that health

> visitors are different and we will still continue to be the organisation

> for health visitors: but we want to give the same good service and

> welcome to our other members, like school nurses "

>

> I was chair-elect but I have to admit that I failed in my efforts,

> against vicious odds, to keep that promise. I am sorry and want to

> apologise to the health visitors and CPHVA members I let down, but

> cannot write any more, too upset.

>

> Margaret Buttigieg wrote:

>

> > Hi Gill

> >

> > Really great to hear from you and what improtant points you are making.

> >

> > Having the title HV clearly allows you to be seen in the publics eye

> > as safe and someone who has a valid role, And it is interesting the

> > issue about how you see yourself, like me, as a health visitor rather

> > than a nurse. Maybe there is something there about how we view the HV

> > role and its function and how we see it fitting into the family of

> > nursing - not swallowed up - but as an equal part but a part with a

> > different focus and function.

> >

> > As health visitors the policy is directing us along the multi

> > disciplinary mulitagency route and we need to be using a title and

> > performing a role that is known and understood to do this. One of the

> > things I wander is that for many Hvs they themselves are unsure about

> > the role and so would find the role you are doing and such work

> > difficult - perhaps this is the reason for the comment I often get -

> > we know we need to change and to do something different but do not

> > know what to do.

> >

> > The other issue you raise about confusion across the board if the

> > title changed is also important and something not often voiced. I do

> > sometimes wander if one of the problems with the CPHVA was the change

> > in title which felt right at the time but maybe wasn't.

> >

> > Keep in touch and let us know you are there from time to time.

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > Margaret

> >

>

October 14, 2002

Thanks for reminding me about why we looked at a name change - I guess

then we did not have a leaderhsip that could only see nursing as important.

And it was not you who moved the name change - it was more me and and

Jane who were chairs at the time. All you did was follow through the actions

of previous people - and then I thibk we have to accept it got into

dangerous hands and as an organisation the CPHVA lost something.

The same applied when we were responding to PREP and the community education

documents. I remeber clearly challenging Colin Ralph - the CE of the UKCC

about the importance of eqaul worth and value for the three professions -

nursing, midwifery and health visiting and him changing the final draft of

the UKCC document in my presence. Then of course we were not so

spohisticated in putting school nursing alongside to as we perhaps need to

do now. We did not have policy support from government than either and it is

so sad that when it is there and when we have Sure Start and REgeneration

and so on to help us - we are not making use of it.

is right in what he says to and thankyou - I like to be postive

and have a strong belief we will get there. My thought though is we need to

go for the support outside Nursing and look elsewhere in the voluntary

sector and so on and for those who understand what we stand for.

It is back to the roots but in a different age