Guest guest Posted September 17, 2001 Report Share Posted September 17, 2001 I'm always a bit sceptical when people use the word 'anxiety'; its a bit of a pat on the head, don't you think? Thirty years ago it was a term that health professionals used about patients; now it is recognised that that each party has a valid view. I'm not a CPHVA member, but I think the best way forward is an open debate, not a broad statement that there is no need to feel 'anxious'. I haven't scrolled down yet to find the RCN's view, but colleagues may be interested to hear that I am still waiting for a response (other than a letter saying she'd received it) to my letter to Beverly Malone writen way back in July (or it may even have been June). I sent a reminder letter a couple of weeks ago, but still haven't heard. At a professional level, I don't think that the head of the BMA would fail to reply to one of the medical deans like that. I'd be interested to hear June's view! From: Cowley <sarah@...> Date sent: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:48:39 +0100 Send reply to: Subject: Re: NMC [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN and the CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly in the spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; you are a very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent information in this regard. Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions to clinic bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or comments that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the debate. However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions on behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. What do other members think? Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the official position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on the grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they should take that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing Press and the grapevine, we know that is happening. However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free to respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of view taken by any other contributer. I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded message so that it reads " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " best wishes " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > message: > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the CPHVA, > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that the > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond 2004. > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of recent > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong safeguards > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the CPHVA > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton and a > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are feeling. > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > offence for anyone else to use that title. > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only one > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are not > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would suggest, > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It would > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > http://www.msfcphva.org > > Harvey > Assistant Information Officer > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > 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. > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Harvey MA > Assistant Information Officer > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > 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. > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2002 Report Share Posted May 19, 2002 Well, , you certainly came out fighting.. I admit to my shame that when I received mine I noticed that health visiting was not mentioned and thought 'so now we do not have to abide by the code of conduct?' , shrugged my shoulders and filed it away. I think it's called battle fatigue! However, I am glad that we have people like yourself to inspire us and galvanise us into action once more. I will be writing. Thanks , Re: NMC > >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:06:12 +0100 > > > >Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a > >week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood > >pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early > >retirement after the wedding! > > > >I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I > >returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, > >like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially > >'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the > >continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was > >sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the > >statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are > >doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? > >Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the > >proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a > >promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted > >to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be > >permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same > >way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? > > > >I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as > >the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute > >assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the > >Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of > >another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a > >register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and > >public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We > >need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as > >required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument > >that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and > >restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for > >nurses or midwives in their training rules). > > > >Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are > >desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need > >revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and > >we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We > >cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed > >before the new health visiting standards are implemented. > > > >Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes > > > > > > > > Houston wrote: > > > > >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday > > >campaign the postman comes!!!! > > >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the > > >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! > >My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > > > > > > > >Dear Asbridge > > > > > > > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > > > > > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health > > >visiting and neither does the 'News'. > > >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School > > >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. > > >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a > > >marvellous bit of trickery! > > > > > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at > > >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health > >visiting > > >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of > >health > > >visiting. > > > > > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over > > >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It > > >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without > >intention > > >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > > > > > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is > > >fake'. > > > > > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 Hi , I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting, at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers from other community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from 45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but because the statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle. Lorraine On 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote: Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early retirement after the wedding! I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially 'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for nurses or midwives in their training rules). Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed before the new health visiting standards are implemented. Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote: >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >campaign the postman comes!!!! >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > >Dear Asbridge > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >visiting and neither does the 'News'. >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >marvellous bit of trickery! > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >visiting. > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >fake'. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 Lorraine, Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too went down the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to our community nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51 week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managers also recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course and supported fully reinstating the 51 weeks. Re: NMC Hi , I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting, at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers from other community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from 45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but because the statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle. Lorraine On 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote: Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early retirement after the wedding! I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially 'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for nurses or midwives in their training rules). Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed before the new health visiting standards are implemented. Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote: >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >campaign the postman comes!!!! >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > >Dear Asbridge > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >visiting and neither does the 'News'. >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >marvellous bit of trickery! > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >visiting. > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >fake'. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 Hi Pat, thanks for that thread of hope, my only concern is that here in Wales our funding comes from Welsh Assembly Government,and they have stated rather covertly that funding will not be forecoming for a 51 week course unless statute conveys this. This was in light of the review of health visiting in Wales which stated that the course should be increased. Lorraine On 20 May 2002 at 14:08, Pat Colliety wrote: Lorraine, Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too went down the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to our community nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51 week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managers also recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course and supported fully reinstating the 51 weeks. Re: NMC Hi , I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting, at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers from other community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from 45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but because the statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle. Lorraine On 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote: Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early retirement after the wedding! I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially 'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for nurses or midwives in their training rules). Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed before the new health visiting standards are implemented. Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote: >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >campaign the postman comes!!!! >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > >Dear Asbridge > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >visiting and neither does the 'News'. >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >marvellous bit of trickery! > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >visiting. > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >fake'. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 Hi when I refer to statute, I mean UKCC/NMC regulation for the training of Health Visitors. If NMC changes the regulation from a minimum of 32 weeks to 51 weeks, then Welsh Assembly who at present fully fund student places, will have to conform. Lorraine On 20 May 2002 at 17:45, Manning wrote: Dear Pat and Lorraine. If course length and outcome have been demonstrated to be effective (ie evidence-based?) then the notion of everyone doing it differently is absurd to say the least. It is simply unacceptable that non-evidence based politics is being used to justify the re-invention of wheels all over the place. If we only took one issue, eg the NSF for MH in England (my big banana) and concentrated on delivering similitude and highest common factors across the UK, would not the world be a better place? Instead of which political ambition and absurd historical attitudes and clannishness drag everyone down to the base level..this no amount of money will solve, but what you are advocating would. As if something crucial happens when you cross the border..some fundamental changes in neurochemistry or biological process perhaps? Please forgive my ignorance, but when you mention statute Lorraine...do you mean English/UK/Welsh? As someone working in the vol sector, I know how devolution has complicated our lives. if there are issues relating to MH/PH/community, which is the main body that lobbies for HVisiting across the UK and how does it split its lobbying to each of the four nations now? As I say, please bear with me, as I try to understand this. Chris. www.primhe.org Re: NMC Hi , I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting, at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers from other community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from 45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but because the statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle. Lorraine On 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote: Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early retirement after the wedding! I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially 'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for nurses or midwives in their training rules). Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed before the new health visiting standards are implemented. Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote: >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >campaign the postman comes!!!! >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > >Dear Asbridge > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >visiting and neither does the 'News'. >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >marvellous bit of trickery! > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >visiting. > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >fake'. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 Pat, As an SPT (CPT) in Guildford and Waverley PCT I must say that I have been happy with Nescot and the training of student HV's. Our managers (from the old SHB trust) never supported the reduced course and were delighted (like practitioners) when you extended the course. My ongoing concerns at present are the menorship course (for specialist practice) and the return to practice programme for HV's. Audrey Simmonds recently presented a well balanced argument re: mentorship courses at Nescot but SPT's (mainly HV's) gave her some food for thought - most of which she actually agreed with. The return to practice course worries me greatly and I was saddened recently when I met with an HV who had almost completed the course and in discussion discovered that she had not even heard of let alone seen the HV Development Resource Pack!! Surely this should be fundamental to any return to practice course to help practioners visualise the future and to feel it is an exciting time to return to health visiting. The learning contract/outcomes and the paperwork for competencies were comprehensive .. but I feel standands in health visiting once again are being compromised at the return to practice level. Other returners are having difficulty obtaining study sessions due to the timing of their courses ... hopefully from their evaluations the course can be re-evaluated. Sorry Pat to 'moan' but when I first talk to propective returners (following their initial interest expressed on contacting our HR department they are given my name as a contact to find out more) I sell the profession passionately and highlight the exciting time ahead. Several returners have expressed disappointment in the course (not the practice placement). The issues appear to be around course content not meeting practice needs and I just feel very sad. I have expressed my concerns with Probert (my manager) and she is to address this issue of returners directly at your business meeting which I beleive is looming. Practice placments and course content both need to be addressed together ... mentors and course tutors need to meet ..... the same as happens with SPT's and the student's personal tutor. Pat, if you want to discuss this further then please do not hesitate to contact me ( knows where I am). Any comments from Senate? RE: NMC Lorraine,Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too wentdown the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to ourcommunity nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managersalso recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course andsupported fully reinstating the 51 weeks.-----Original Message-----From: Lorraine JOOMUN [mailto:JOOMUNls@...]Sent: 20 May 2002 10:27 Cowley; Subject: Re: NMCHi ,I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting,at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers fromother community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but becausethe statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle.LorraineOn 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote:Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for aweek's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my bloodpressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into earlyretirement after the wedding!I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when Ireturned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided,like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about thecontinued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that wassold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of thestatute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' aredoing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting?Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and theproposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was apromise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wantedto call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would bepermitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The sameway we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions?I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long asthe health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absoluteassurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in theStatute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition ofanother register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up aregister for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community andpublic health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. Weneed to have the new health visiting competencies brought out asrequired standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrumentthat takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course andrestrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist fornurses or midwives in their training rules).Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges aredesparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that needrevalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate andwe have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. Wecannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developedbefore the new health visiting standards are implemented.Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote:>Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday>campaign the postman comes!!!!>I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the>past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!!My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!!>>>Dear Asbridge>>>Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct>>I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health>visiting and neither does the 'News'.>Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School>Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting.>Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a>marvellous bit of trickery!>>I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at>conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting>would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health>visiting.>>It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over>what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It>seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium withoutintention>to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors.>>Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is>fake'.>>Yours sincerely>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 I am glad that Audrey's session re the mentors' course was helpful. It is the first cohort,so any constructive criticism to develop it is very welcome. The health visitor return to practice course you mention is, in fact, an excellent example of what Cowley was talking about previously. It is a return to practice course run by the University of Surrey, NOT a return to health visiting practice course. We were asked if we minded HV returners sitting in on our specialist practice sessions for 4 days. The students were told that they could chose whether or not they wished to attend any specialist practice sessions, and which ones they wished to attend. I can only assume that for whatever reason the students did not attend the relevant sessions. Nescot, therefore, has no control over what they have in their course. Please rest assured that our HV students have sessions that address the HV development pack, public health agenda etc etc.. [Pat Colliety] -----Original Message-----From: carlandjuliedalton [mailto:carlandjuliedalton@...]Sent: 21 May 2002 11:54 Subject: Re: NMC Pat, As an SPT (CPT) in Guildford and Waverley PCT I must say that I have been happy with Nescot and the training of student HV's. Our managers (from the old SHB trust) never supported the reduced course and were delighted (like practitioners) when you extended the course. My ongoing concerns at present are the menorship course (for specialist practice) and the return to practice programme for HV's. Audrey Simmonds recently presented a well balanced argument re: mentorship courses at Nescot but SPT's (mainly HV's) gave her some food for thought - most of which she actually agreed with. The return to practice course worries me greatly and I was saddened recently when I met with an HV who had almost completed the course and in discussion discovered that she had not even heard of let alone seen the HV Development Resource Pack!! Surely this should be fundamental to any return to practice course to help practioners visualise the future and to feel it is an exciting time to return to health visiting. The learning contract/outcomes and the paperwork for competencies were comprehensive .. but I feel standands in health visiting once again are being compromised at the return to practice level. Other returners are having difficulty obtaining study sessions due to the timing of their courses ... hopefully from their evaluations the course can be re-evaluated. Sorry Pat to 'moan' but when I first talk to propective returners (following their initial interest expressed on contacting our HR department they are given my name as a contact to find out more) I sell the profession passionately and highlight the exciting time ahead. Several returners have expressed disappointment in the course (not the practice placement). The issues appear to be around course content not meeting practice needs and I just feel very sad. I have expressed my concerns with Probert (my manager) and she is to address this issue of returners directly at your business meeting which I beleive is looming. Practice placments and course content both need to be addressed together ... mentors and course tutors need to meet ..... the same as happens with SPT's and the student's personal tutor. Pat, if you want to discuss this further then please do not hesitate to contact me ( knows where I am). Any comments from Senate? RE: NMC Lorraine,Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too wentdown the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to ourcommunity nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managersalso recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course andsupported fully reinstating the 51 weeks.-----Original Message-----From: Lorraine JOOMUN [mailto:JOOMUNls@...]Sent: 20 May 2002 10:27 Cowley; Subject: Re: NMCHi ,I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting,at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers fromother community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but becausethe statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle.LorraineOn 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote:Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for aweek's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my bloodpressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into earlyretirement after the wedding!I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when Ireturned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided,like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about thecontinued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that wassold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of thestatute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' aredoing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting?Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and theproposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was apromise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wantedto call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would bepermitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The sameway we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions?I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long asthe health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absoluteassurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in theStatute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition ofanother register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up aregister for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community andpublic health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. Weneed to have the new health visiting competencies brought out asrequired standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrumentthat takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course andrestrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist fornurses or midwives in their training rules).Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges aredesparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that needrevalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate andwe have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. Wecannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developedbefore the new health visiting standards are implemented.Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote:>Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday>campaign the postman comes!!!!>I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the>past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!!My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!!>>>Dear Asbridge>>>Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct>>I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health>visiting and neither does the 'News'.>Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School>Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting.>Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a>marvellous bit of trickery!>>I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at>conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting>would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health>visiting.>>It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over>what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It>seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium withoutintention>to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors.>>Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is>fake'.>>Yours sincerely>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 It might help to know that here at South Bank Un, Londoni we shortened our prog only to 46 weeks and were then required by a major consortium in South London to extend it back to 52 weeks (to include 3 wks leave) for ALL pathways. this transpired because practitioners prepared on shorter progs than ours were found not to be able to perform to the new demanding level required in primary care and also needed far more support once qualified. There is clearly no way you can prepare an HV to practice competently in much less than 52wks and it must be against standards for clinical governance and our code of conduct to try to do so in my view! Hang in there and good luck! frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 I think you are right Frances, as educationalists we are relatively powerless unless the practitioners agree that HVs (and other specialist practitioners) need the 51 or 52 week courses. We seem to be going around the old arguments again and again, that cheaper isn't cheaper in the long run. Pat Re: NMC It might help to know that here at South Bank Un, Londoni we shortened our prog only to 46 weeks and were then required by a major consortium in South London to extend it back to 52 weeks (to include 3 wks leave) for ALL pathways. this transpired because practitioners prepared on shorter progs than ours were found not to be able to perform to the new demanding level required in primary care and also needed far more support once qualified. There is clearly no way you can prepare an HV to practice competently in much less than 52wks and it must be against standards for clinical governance and our code of conduct to try to do so in my view! Hang in there and good luck! frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 As the HV course leader at Nescot I feel I must correct what has clearly been a misunderstanding. Firstly we do not run a Return to Health Visiting course; much as we would like to we simply do not have the resources at the current time. However the University of Surrey run a Return to Nursing course, which as you are aware is all that the UKCC require HV returnees to complete( plus a further 4 days study on professional practice and a period of supervised practice). As we have a memorandum of co-operation to run the Community Nursing courses for UniS we were asked earlier this year if some of their HV returnees could access some of our professional practice sessions. This did not commence until after Easter and was done solely on the basis that they sat in on the already arranged sessions which were convenient for them to attend and which they felt met their learning needs. This has not been ideal for them as we were coming to the end of the double module and this has limited both their choice and ability to complete 4 days. At no time has Nescot accepted responsibility for these students they are not enrolled here and I don't think we have received any financial reward for their attendence. RE: NMC Lorraine,Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too wentdown the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to ourcommunity nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managersalso recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course andsupported fully reinstating the 51 weeks.-----Original Message-----From: Lorraine JOOMUN [mailto:JOOMUNls@...]Sent: 20 May 2002 10:27 Cowley; Subject: Re: NMCHi ,I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting,at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers fromother community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but becausethe statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle.LorraineOn 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote:Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for aweek's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my bloodpressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into earlyretirement after the wedding!I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when Ireturned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided,like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about thecontinued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that wassold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of thestatute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' aredoing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting?Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and theproposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was apromise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wantedto call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would bepermitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The sameway we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions?I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long asthe health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absoluteassurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in theStatute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition ofanother register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up aregister for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community andpublic health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. Weneed to have the new health visiting competencies brought out asrequired standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrumentthat takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course andrestrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist fornurses or midwives in their training rules).Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges aredesparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that needrevalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate andwe have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. Wecannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developedbefore the new health visiting standards are implemented.Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote:>Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday>campaign the postman comes!!!!>I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the>past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!!My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!!>>>Dear Asbridge>>>Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct>>I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health>visiting and neither does the 'News'.>Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School>Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting.>Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a>marvellous bit of trickery!>>I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at>conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting>would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health>visiting.>>It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over>what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It>seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium withoutintention>to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors.>>Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is>fake'.>>Yours sincerely>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding and I appreciate the memorandum of co-operation with UnisS for the return to nursing course. Standards still need to be addressed with regards to what we are hoping to acheive here and hopefully further dialogue with UnisS/Nescot and the consortium can help to facilitate this. RE: NMC Lorraine,Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too wentdown the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to ourcommunity nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managersalso recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course andsupported fully reinstating the 51 weeks.-----Original Message-----From: Lorraine JOOMUN [mailto:JOOMUNls@...]Sent: 20 May 2002 10:27 Cowley; Subject: Re: NMCHi ,I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting,at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers fromother community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but becausethe statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle.LorraineOn 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote:Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for aweek's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my bloodpressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into earlyretirement after the wedding!I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when Ireturned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided,like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about thecontinued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that wassold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of thestatute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' aredoing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting?Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and theproposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was apromise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wantedto call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would bepermitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The sameway we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions?I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long asthe health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absoluteassurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in theStatute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition ofanother register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up aregister for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community andpublic health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. Weneed to have the new health visiting competencies brought out asrequired standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrumentthat takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course andrestrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist fornurses or midwives in their training rules).Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges aredesparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that needrevalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate andwe have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. Wecannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developedbefore the new health visiting standards are implemented.Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote:>Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday>campaign the postman comes!!!!>I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the>past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!!My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!!>>>Dear Asbridge>>>Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct>>I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health>visiting and neither does the 'News'.>Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School>Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting.>Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a>marvellous bit of trickery!>>I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at>conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting>would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health>visiting.>>It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over>what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It>seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium withoutintention>to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors.>>Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is>fake'.>>Yours sincerely>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 I agree, but it comes back all the time to funding. Give us the resources and we'll do it! Pat -----Original Message-----From: carlandjuliedalton [mailto:carlandjuliedalton@...]Sent: 21 May 2002 17:48 Subject: Re: NMC Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding and I appreciate the memorandum of co-operation with UnisS for the return to nursing course. Standards still need to be addressed with regards to what we are hoping to acheive here and hopefully further dialogue with UnisS/Nescot and the consortium can help to facilitate this. RE: NMC Lorraine,Bad as things are for health visitor education, don't despair. We too wentdown the 36 week course, which proved to be absurd. When we went to ourcommunity nurse manager colleagues, ready to fight, beg and plead for a 51week course; we were bowled over by the support they gave us. The managersalso recognised that it is not possible to have an effective course andsupported fully reinstating the 51 weeks.-----Original Message-----From: Lorraine JOOMUN [mailto:JOOMUNls@...]Sent: 20 May 2002 10:27 Cowley; Subject: Re: NMCHi ,I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting,at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers fromother community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but becausethe statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle.LorraineOn 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote:Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for aweek's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my bloodpressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into earlyretirement after the wedding!I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when Ireturned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided,like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about thecontinued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that wassold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of thestatute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' aredoing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting?Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and theproposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was apromise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wantedto call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would bepermitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The sameway we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions?I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long asthe health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absoluteassurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in theStatute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition ofanother register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up aregister for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community andpublic health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. Weneed to have the new health visiting competencies brought out asrequired standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrumentthat takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course andrestrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist fornurses or midwives in their training rules).Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges aredesparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that needrevalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate andwe have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. Wecannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developedbefore the new health visiting standards are implemented.Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote:>Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday>campaign the postman comes!!!!>I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the>past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!!My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!!>>>Dear Asbridge>>>Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct>>I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health>visiting and neither does the 'News'.>Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School>Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting.>Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a>marvellous bit of trickery!>>I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at>conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting>would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health>visiting.>>It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over>what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It>seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium withoutintention>to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors.>>Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is>fake'.>>Yours sincerely>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 Thank you Thank you Thank you keep them coming coming coming _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 In response to requests for views from one of the silent majority, I am in full support of the approaches taken and views expressed on the health visiting, please keep up the good work, I am disseminating it locally On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:41:53 +0000 ann ebeid <annebeid@...> wrote: Barbara A. Hawksley Principal Lecturer (Community Nursing) School of Health Staffordshire University Blackheath Lane Stafford ST18 0AD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 I am not a HV, so I have no personal axe to grind on this one, but I was struck by the complete invisibility of health visiting on the NMC website, in the newsletter and in the revised code of professional conduct. The code of professional conduct failed to acknowledege the ethical issues of nurses working in arenas other than the clinical direct patient care one. The public health role of nurses was completely ignored in this key document. The NMC need to look at documents like the SHEPS (Society of Health Education and Promotion Specialists) Code of Ethics for more appropriate models (although this is not perfect but is a start). I looked for information on the proposed public health nurse register and public health nursing on the NMC website yesterday and found absolutely nothing. All the signs so far is that the NMC is strongly geared towards the needs of clinical nurses and midwives and has nor grasped the issues of health visiting or public health nursing. Bev Public Health Nurse Rotherham PCT nmc Dear Colleagues It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying well done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for other people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as a body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me. So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as a measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I am just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many folk printed off stuff for colleagues. I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS. I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is a bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx <http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 Thanks for the reminder . I've got your original email at home to prompt me to put a letter together for A. BCC to: From: " Houston " <annamhouston@...> Date sent: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:53:29 +0100 Subject: nmc Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Thank you Thank you Thank you keep them coming coming coming _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2002 Report Share Posted June 15, 2002 I for one am wholeheartedly in support of 's letter and I am sure there are many HVs out there who don't use the internet regularly who would be emailing now. The longer I practice health visiting the more I understand that although we share (largely) a common knowledge base with nursing we have a different philosophy..we carry out a different function in the NHS - this risks being lost.Thank you for expressing my sentiments so eloquently. Selwood ( HV + practice assessor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 , sorry for the delay in responding, but am with you all the way! Regards, June Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2002 Report Share Posted June 17, 2002 - I am absolutely and completely behind you on this. Thank you very much for taking up the cudgels so eloquently on our behalf. Sheelah nmc Dear Colleagues It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying well done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for other people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as a body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me. So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as a measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I am just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many folk printed off stuff for colleagues. I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS. I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is a bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2003 Report Share Posted February 16, 2003 " existing narrowly focused health visiting function . . . . ? " So that is what the minister thinks of health visiting. We know where he got that idea from, but rather hoped that last year's CPHVA AGM would have stopped it from being reinforced. Obviously not sufficiently; or perhaps it is being encouraged from elsewhere. Several of us are gearing up for another meeting about the 'third register' at NMC this week and hope it will be less depressing than the one last November. Houston wrote: >To interested parties the latest missive via my MP from the Minister re the >changes to the NMC register. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.