Re: NMC and membership organisations

[Guest guest]

Hello nne. I agree it is very important to find out what the different

associations' views are about the title of our new regulatory body and, even

more important, what, if anything, they are going to do about the proposals.

The official view of the CPHVA is that they want the health visiting register

to stay but that they also want to be seen as part of the 'family of

nursing'. The CPHVA response to the consultation exercise clearly stated that

they felt there was 'no logic' in leaving health visiting out of the title and

they asked (quite strongly, I think) that health visiting should be included

in the title. They also pressed for a health visiting committee to be set up.

My concern is that, as an organisation, they have been so determined to

convince everyone that health visiting is part of the 'family of nursing' and

that 'public health nursing' is the same thing as health visiting (look at

their delight at the 'family health nurse' and the ish 'public health

nurse' concept and Obi Omadi's response to my letter in this month's journal)

that they are making it very difficult for those of us who feel that nursing

and health visiting are not the same thing.

I do not think that, either, that the majority of CPHVA members realise that a

change of professional title to 'public health nurse' (or any other kind of

nurse) will automatically lead to the loss of the health visiting register,

because there is only one nursing register (albeit with several parts, which

all apply to first level registration only). Post-registration nursing

qualifications are not registered now, and will not be in future.

The 'family of nursing' line is also making it very easy for the government and

nursing bodies to say, well , we don't need to speak about health visiting,

because nursing includes health visiting, so every time we mention nursing, of

course we mean it to include health visiting. Unfortunately, that approach

means that health visiting never has a voice or any control over its own

profession, because it is not seen as separate and will always be over-ruled by

the majority vote. Colleagues who were at the recent UKSC weekend will

remember that, when we protested that health visiting students needed CPTs who

were more than just 'mentors' we were told that mentors suited the whole of

nursing and, as health visiting is part of the family of nursing, it must suit

health visitors as well.

I have been assured that the CPHVA view about being 'part of the family of

nursing' is not meant to signify that health visiting and nursing are the same

thing, but that is definitely how it is construed in the world at large and

(although I am also told there are no 'ideological differences' between my

views and those held by the CPHVA), I do not hear any official statements from

them pointing out that health visiting and nursing are NOT the same thing.

Since they have taken the 'family of nursing' line, too, they have firmly

declined to state that health visiting is a distinct profession, which is of

course what is needed if the statute and distinct professional regulation for

health visiting (i.e., the register) are to be retained.

The RCN have always been completely open about the fact that they DO think

nursing and health vising are 'indistinguishable'. It is their official policy

to campaign for removal of all the statutes relating to health visiting,

because they think nursing regulation encompasses health visiting

satisfactorily: hence the 'community health care nursing' shortened courses;

all nurses together, health visiting is not a separate profession so it should

not, in their view, have a separate register. Their child health forum also

holds (I do not know if it is full RCN policy, or just of that particular

forum) that health visitors and school nurses should all be registered as

children's nurses, because only children's nurses should be allowed to work

with children. I am not sure where that leaves teachers, nursery nurses,

child psychologists etc, but again: if you hold that nursing and health

visiting are the same thing, it is easy to see where the view that only

children's nurses should nurse children comes from. This line is supported by

the view that health visiting is about 'public health nursing' not about

children (tortuous, I know, but a strongly held view that, again, is shored up

by all the talk about how keen health visitors are to be cast as public health

nurses).

UNISON (doubtless influenced by their former ish HVA contingent) are the

one organisation that are clear that health visiting and nursing are different,

in the same way that midwifery and nursing are different. Most of their

energies go into their student membership, though, so I do not think they are

likely to hold any campaigns or fight for the NMC title to be changed. I am

not a member though, so if anyone has an 'inside line' to them, let us know.

The RCM is keen for health visiting to be completely drawn under the nursing

umbrella, because they are afraid that, in a vote in Council, nurses and health

visitors would always vote together against midwives, so they see it as

strengthening their position if there is just one nursing register, one

midwifery register.

So: perhaps, as well as our MPs, we should all make representations to our

different organisations to find out what, if anything, they are doing about

this proposed change to our regulatory framework. We know that we can expect

the RCN and RCM to support the exclusion of health visiting; we need to find

out what Unison thinks and will do. I wish I could conclude by writing

confidently 'and we know we can rely on the CPHVA to fight to maintain health

visiting as a profession'. Perhaps someone else will be in a position to add

that bit.

Best wishes

nne Cowpe wrote:

> Re NMC Does anyone know what the CPHVA view on the title of this is? I have

> tried to ring Anne Owen CPHVA Wales but have been unable to get hold of her.

> Those of us who are members of the CPHVA should actually be contacting them

> and I shall do this right now. Can we expect any support from the RCN? have

> any members contacted them?

>

> Thanks for the info from the BMJ Woody I shall incorporate it into my letter

> to my MP We do need to be sure that we can back up what we are asking for by

> reference to this sort of document. I agree if the title of the new council

> doesn't reflect the role it could be called anything and how would nurses

> and midwifes like that? The only thing that concerns me about the title

> commodia is it's possible links with the commode which doesn't really

> conjure up a public health picture. We could follow the example of the Nurse

> Education Forum in Wales who have renamed themselves CYNGOR which is the

> welsh word for council.

>

> Re the children's task force it doesn't surprise me that Health Visitors are

> not represented. This is just another example of policy that is not joined

> up and certainly not giving due consideration to health in the wider sense.

> I agree that it should also include education and social services but then a

> Health Visitor could have told them that. It would be interesting to see the

> terms of reference for this group.

>

> nne

>

> nne

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Senate,

A key group of stakeholders in the future of health visiting are our social work

colleagues (who are also struggling with their new 'social care' council). The

magazine Community Care is hosting a free conference 'community care live' at

the Business Design Centre, Islington, London on May 23-24th (details from 020

8652 4455) and some of the sessions of the similar conference last year dealt

with heavyweight policy, workforce and education issues. With our 'NMC'

consultation deadline of June 1st, there is just time to get some of the leading

social workers as allies, at their national meeting in May. If you want to send

a carefully crafted (short) letter (with name and contact address) prompting

support for HVs to the magazine itself, in advance, the editor is Terry Philpot

and these go to <comcare.letters@...> .

Senate members may have good channels of communication with other professional

groups, like the Royal College of GPs, Paedatricians, Speech and Language

Therapists, Community Learning Disability Nurses and all such practitioners

whose work will be seriously impaired if there are no HV trainees in a few years

time to maintain the necessary skills base for health in the community.

Woody.

>

> > Re NMC Does anyone know what the CPHVA view on the title of this is? I have

> > tried to ring Anne Owen CPHVA Wales but have been unable to get hold of her.

> > Those of us who are members of the CPHVA should actually be contacting them

> > and I shall do this right now. Can we expect any support from the RCN? have

> > any members contacted them?

> >

> > Thanks for the info from the BMJ Woody I shall incorporate it into my letter

> > to my MP We do need to be sure that we can back up what we are asking for by

> > reference to this sort of document. I agree if the title of the new council

> > doesn't reflect the role it could be called anything and how would nurses

> > and midwifes like that? The only thing that concerns me about the title

> > commodia is it's possible links with the commode which doesn't really

> > conjure up a public health picture. We could follow the example of the Nurse

> > Education Forum in Wales who have renamed themselves CYNGOR which is the

> > welsh word for council.

> >

> > Re the children's task force it doesn't surprise me that Health Visitors are

> > not represented. This is just another example of policy that is not joined

> > up and certainly not giving due consideration to health in the wider sense.

> > I agree that it should also include education and social services but then a

> > Health Visitor could have told them that. It would be interesting to see the

> > terms of reference for this group.

> >

> > nne

> >

> > nne

> >

> >