RE: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

January 8, 2012

Definitely will do!LizSent using BlackBerryÂ® from OrangeFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:01:39 +0000< >Reply Subject: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Dear allI am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (prefereably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. 1. Do we need separateregulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what is notprovided by the nursing or midwifery register? 2. Should health visiting betreated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/viewsfrom the profession) 3. How do health visitors (andothers) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? 4. What evidence would yousuggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some areapparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.best wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 11, 2012

Dear ,

I can see that people are perhaps thinking very hard about these difficult questions. it has certainly made me think.

I thought that I might start the ball rolling with some responses:

Question 1. Do we need separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, from that provided by the nursing and midwifery register?

Yes, I think we do. Why? Well if we retain the SCPHN title then public protection is put at risk because basically anyone can call themselves a health visitor as health visiting is no longer regulated. If we were to go back to being called health visitors in statute then I think we need regulating separately with our own standards for competent practice and education.

The whole question revolves around whether we are a distinct profession from nursing and what the differences might be which takes into question 2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC?

I think we are a distinct profession. Having been a nurse and a midwife and then a health visitor I think I know intuitively that health visiting is different. Providing evidence is less easy. However, in the course of writing up my PhD thesis yesterday I did come across an interesting paper when looking at the evidence for providing continuity of care.

A multidisciplinary review of the literature on continuity of care was published in 2003 in the BMJ. This identified different types of continuity of care i.e. relational continuity, informational continuity, managerial continuity. Relational continuity, found in primary care and mental health care 'bridges not only past to current care but also future care'. It extends beyond a specific episode of illness or disease. (Primary care is generalised and does not specifically say Drs. or GPs so I am happy to include HVs in this, not sure what others may think, though) Our work is not primarily about illness and disease but about promotion and prevention although we are indeed involved in episodes of care e.g. post-natal depression. However, we have long-term relationships with whole families, not just one person who may be ill! Not quite sure what I am saying here but again it is perhaps highlighting a difference between nursing and health visiting although I am sure that nurses would argue that they also promote health as would midwives.

The literature on continuity of care in nursing, however, refers mainly to informational continuity and focuses on nurses communicating with each other to provide continuing personalised care for the patient that is consistent across care providers. Most continuity literature in nursing is about discharge planning following acute episodes of hospitalisation. This is very different to what we would hope for in health visiting but what seems to have happened without us really noticing. the time spent communicating with each other about clients has increased as we loose the relational continuity that once used to be there. Do we need to articulate this (perhaps more clearly) so that we say that both parents and health visitors want and value relational continuity and that this is what contributes to our distinctive role?

What do others think?

Ref: Haggerty J. L., Reid R. J., Freeman G. K., Starfield B. H., Adair C. E. & McKendry R. (2003) Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 327

Best wishes,

NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Dear all

I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (prefereably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on.

1. Do we neeis not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?

2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC?

(evidence/views from the profession)

3. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not?

4. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.

best wishes

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6776 (20120108) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com

January 11, 2012

This is really interesting, , and extremely useful. Thank you for taking the time to give such a carefully cionsidered reply. I would be interested to hear others' views as wellkindest regardsOn 11 Jan 2012, at 19:22, Bidmead wrote: Dear , I can see that people are perhaps thinking very hard about these difficult questions. it has certainly made me think. I thought that I might start the ball rolling with some responses: Question 1. Do we need separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, from that provided by the nursing and midwifery register? Yes, I think we do. Why? Well if we retain the SCPHN title then public protection is put at risk because basically anyone can call themselves a health visitor as health visiting is no longer regulated. If we were to go back to being called health visitors in statute then I think we need regulating separately with our own standards for competent practice and education. The whole question revolves around whether we are a distinct profession from nursing and what the differences might be which takes into question 2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? I think we are a distinct profession. Having been a nurse and a midwife and then a health visitor I think I know intuitively that health visiting is different. Providing evidence is less easy. However, in the course of writing up my PhD thesis yesterday I did come across an interesting paper when looking at the evidence for providing continuity of care. A multidisciplinary review of the literature on continuity of care was published in 2003 in the BMJ. This identified different types of continuity of care i.e. relational continuity, informational continuity, managerial continuity. Relational continuity, found in primary care and mental health care 'bridges not only past to current care but also future care'. It extends beyond a specific episode of illness or disease. (Primary care is generalised and does not specifically say Drs. or GPs so I am happy to include HVs in this, not sure what others may think, though) Our work is not primarily about illness and disease but about promotion and prevention although we are indeed involved in episodes of care e.g. post-natal depression. However, we have long-term relationships with whole families, not just one person who may be ill! Not quite sure what I am saying here but again it is perhaps highlighting a difference between nursing and health visiting although I am sure that nurses would argue that they also promote health as would midwives. The literature on continuity of care in nursing, however, refers mainly to informational continuity and focuses on nurses communicating with each other to provide continuing personalised care for the patient that is consistent across care providers. Most continuity literature in nursing is about discharge planning following acute episodes of hospitalisation. This is very different to what we would hope for in health visiting but what seems to have happened without us really noticing. the time spent communicating with each other about clients has increased as we loose the relational continuity that once used to be there. Do we need to articulate this (perhaps more clearly) so that we say that both parents and health visitors want and value relational continuity and that this is what contributes to our distinctive role? What do others think? Ref: Haggerty J. L., Reid R. J., Freeman G. K., Starfield B. H., Adair C. E. & McKendry R. (2003) Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 327 Best wishes, NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Dear all I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (prefereably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. 1. Do we neeis not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)3. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? 4. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.best wishes Cowley sarahcowley183@... http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6776 (20120108) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 11, 2012

Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting This is really interesting, , and extremely useful. Thank you for taking the time to give such a carefully cionsidered reply. I would be interested to hear others' views as well kindest regards On 11 Jan 2012, at 19:22, Bidmead wrote: Dear , I can see that people are perhaps thinking very hard about these difficult questions. it has certainly made me think. I thought that I might start the ball rolling with some responses: Question 1. Do we need separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, from that provided by the nursing and midwifery register? Yes, I think we do. Why? Well if we retain the SCPHN title then public protection is put at risk because basically anyone can call themselves a health visitor as health visiting is no longer regulated. If we were to go back to being called health visitors in statute then I think we need regulating separately with our own standards for competent practice and education. The whole question revolves around whether we are a distinct profession from nursing and what the differences might be which takes into question 2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? I think we are a distinct profession. Having been a nurse and a midwife and then a health visitor I think I know intuitively that health visiting is different. Providing evidence is less easy. However, in the course of writing up my PhD thesis yesterday I did come across an interesting paper when looking at the evidence for providing continuity of care. A multidisciplinary review of the literature on continuity of care was published in 2003 in the BMJ. This identified different types of continuity of care i.e. relational continuity, informational continuity, managerial continuity. Relational continuity, found in primary care and mental health care 'bridges not only past to current care but also future care'. It extends beyond a specific episode of illness or disease. (Primary care is generalised and does not specifically say Drs. or GPs so I am happy to include HVs in this, not sure what others may think, though) Our work is not primarily about illness and disease but about promotion and prevention although we are indeed involved in episodes of care e.g. post-natal depression. However, we have long-term relationships with whole families, not just one person who may be ill! Not quite sure what I am saying here but again it is perhaps highlighting a difference between nursing and health visiting although I am sure that nurses would argue that they also promote health as would midwives. The literature on continuity of care in nursing, however, refers mainly to informational continuity and focuses on nurses communicating with each other to provide continuing personalised care for the patient that is consistent across care providers. Most continuity literature in nursing is about discharge planning following acute episodes of hospitalisation. This is very different to what we would hope for in health visiting but what seems to have happened without us really noticing. the time spent communicating with each other about clients has increased as we loose the relational continuity that once used to be there. Do we need to articulate this (perhaps more clearly) so that we say that both parents and health visitors want and value relational continuity and that this is what contributes to our distinctive role? What do others think? Ref: Haggerty J. L., Reid R. J., Freeman G. K., Starfield B. H., Adair C. E. & McKendry R. (2003) Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 327 Best wishes, NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Dear all I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (prefereably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. 1. Do we neeis not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)3. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? 4. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses. best wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6776 (20120108) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498.

Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ

January 12, 2012

Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 12, 2012

Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 12, 2012

Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 12, 2012

Oh my goodness! That means starting all negotiations again I guess!!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:40 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 12, 2012

Thats not good news!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 12, 2012

Do hope he does not have anything horrid and he will be better soon. Very selfish of me to think of 3rd part of Register first! I feel terrible now!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:40 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 13, 2012

Yes, it does sound grim - poor Dickon. I guess we are all thinking the worst, for him to resign rather than take sick leave. But before knowing that, the review of the register was my first thought too - he has really turned around a poisonous atmosphere at NMC to one where, even if there are different opinions, people could feel safe in voicing and discussing them for the good of the public and professions. Will look out for channels through which to send collective good wishes.On 13 Jan 2012, at 07:56, liz.plastow@... wrote: Do hope he does not have anything horrid and he will be better soon. Very selfish of me to think of 3rd part of Register first! I feel terrible now!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@... Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:40 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@... Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...> Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 13, 2012

Thanks Sent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:25:38 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Yes, it does sound grim - poor Dickon. I guess we are all thinking the worst, for him to resign rather than take sick leave. But before knowing that, the review of the register was my first thought too - he has really turned around a poisonous atmosphere at NMC to one where, even if there are different opinions, people could feel safe in voicing and discussing them for the good of the public and professions. Will look out for channels through which to send collective good wishes.On 13 Jan 2012, at 07:56, liz.plastow@... wrote: Do hope he does not have anything horrid and he will be better soon. Very selfish of me to think of 3rd part of Register first! I feel terrible now!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@... Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:40 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@... Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...> Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 13, 2012

I hope not, but it is not good news and a blow for usBest wishesMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: liz.plastow@...Sender: Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:52:54 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Oh my goodness! That means starting all negotiations again I guess!!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:40 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@...Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcomebest wishesOn 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting University Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498. Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

January 14, 2012

This is very interesting and like everyone I hope Dickon is okay. He was doing a good job in trying to sort out what has always been quite a strange organisation with its own internal problems and so I do hope this does not mean it will start going backwards and become very defensive about health visiting again. I guess we have to watch this space and see how we can influence the appointment and of course the review of the register. Margaret From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mfisher2241@...Sent: 13 January 2012 15:08SenateSubject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting I hope not, but it is not good news and a blow for usBest wishesMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: liz.plastow@... Sender: Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:52:54 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Oh my goodness! That means starting all negotiations again I guess!!LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: mfisher2241@... Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:40 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Sorry I don't have access to the press release re Dickon but it is on the NMC website.He has been off sick since Dec 16th and has resigned on health grounds apparentlyVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: mfisher2241@... Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:22:54 +0000Senate< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Dickon Weir has today resigned which is a shock and very sad newsVBWMaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...> Sender: Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:24:30 +0000< >Reply Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting Thanks to you, too, , for taking the time to reply. Does anyone else have anything to add? Perhaps, as says, the questions are provoking a lot of thought - they are not easy ones to answer, but they are ones the NMC is currently grappling with. As with all policy, the earlier you get into the discussion, the better the chance of influencing the direction it takes, so a few of us are trying to explain and produce some evidence to support the 'knotty' aspects of regulation - which of course, is supposed to exist to protect the public. As far as some of us are concerned, the NMC does not really regulate health visiting - indeed, it is not legally empowered to do so, since 'health visiting' was written out of statute. That is a matter of great concern, because it leaves the public at risk, but it is hard to disentangle regulatory and legal aspects from education, training, professional identity and workforce issues. So, not surprisingly, the NMC need help and to their credit have asked for it (I am thinking of Dickon Weir- speech at CPHVA conference in October). Any other thoughts or ideas welcome best wishes On 12 Jan 2012, at 07:48, Fogarty wrote: Dear all ( Cowleys message)I am contributing to a response to the NMC, who are currently collecting evidence to inform their forthcoming review of the 3rd part/SCPHN part of the register. There are asking four questions, and I would be interested in hearing views and (preferably) any evidence that anyone can identify to pass on. To add comment to the discussion……….well the human creativity produces great singers that vocalise the songs that inspire people to consider the human condition, writers write stories, musicians music, painter art and so forth Nursing/SCPHN HVSN/Midwifery/Other Specialist Branches encompass working with people… who embrace the above… the so called requirements that defining a profession is one with a body of knowledge … the body of knowledge has been developing over the last century at various speeds and times across countries….. Impacted on by context, other knowledge, scientific /tech impacts/ economic, cultural and political associations/interferences and developments… and yet this debate arises and some may say continues to create division instead of cohesion?????? Vulnerable people in society across life span and across cultures .. yes……public protection… at what level do you meanThat which is addressed in a ethical code?....... protection from people/systems/health protection/climatic disruption Wider connections/relationships with people/society….. ownership of health/self determination…. For communities/people……… impacts of self regulation juxtaposed with statutory or enhanced regulation????? Done to or done with???? 7 billion people on the planet…… (another discussion)1. Do we need not d separate regulation for health visiting in terms of public protection, what provided by the nursing or midwifery register?Just a few points from the ICN code of ethics….. Rather see similarities/connections in the umbrella of the professional groups that are nursing, connected to or utilize and build upon knowledge base of nursing and allIn providing care, the nurse promotes an environment in which thehuman rights, values, customs and spiritual beliefs of the individual, family and community are respected.Nurses have four fundamental responsibilities: to promote health, toprevent illness, to restore health and to alleviate suffering. The needfor nursing is universal.Inherent in nursing is respect for human rights, including culturalrights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated withrespect. Nursing care is respectful of and unrestricted by considerationsof age, colour, creed, culture, disability or illness, gender,sexual orientation, nationality, politics, race or social status.Nurses render health services to the individual, the family and thecommunity and co-ordinate their services with those of related groups.The nurse shares with society the responsibility for initiating and supportingaction to meet the health and social needs of the public, in particular those of vulnerable populations.(International Council of Nurses)2. Should health visiting be treated as a separate entity, that is a distinct profession within the NMC? (evidence/views from the profession)……. How owned is owned? Emic and etic……….. Connected to.Feel wary of too much splitting between groupsI would suggest connected as above yet developing skills /knowledge base in different areas according to type and context of practice2. How do health visitors (and others) feel about the SCPHN title and training? Is it meeting their needs as it is? If not, why not? This question has various statements in it – subjective feelings about title, training is a differ thing, needs from students may differ from needs and expectations of employers/populations/individualsEducation evolves as with people – again context and time related though common themes across these themes may get more exposure at various times because of particular needs and a recognition in wider society that it is right to address or work with particular needs to benefit people/families/children and communities local to global I am always concerned when the word training gets used more prominently in documents than education…. These are very different and have different impacts and requirementsEducation also encompasses other learning both academic and non-academicReinvesting……They are specialist they are working in communities they are working in specific knowledge base pertaining to scphn ph … Now one could do a whole critique on ‘needs as it is?’ epistemology/ontology and needs as it is for life or needs as it is articulated?.. May depend on access, availability, context, community links, interconnections with other groups/professions etc etcDon’t all programme evaluate and hear from many sources re the programme content and delivery… its ongoing – Difference between a programme that enables and one that just meetsNeeds are not in isolation from context 3. What evidence would you suggest for maintaining the title Health Visitor, rather than as some are apparently suggesting, referring to health visitors as public health nurses.Reflect on what is Nursing, Nurse/Midwifery, SCPHN/HVSN/ Specialist Nursing/ Professional Nursing for?, future,How life is, impacts, what influences, education, growth, capacity, resources, impacts of the societal changes, global movements, differing views on health….. better understanding of peopleNot sure there is a direct answer because various people have various passions related to the above question – some sound bitesWell aware of the passions this raises given the discussion on this siteHealth – although shifted in a more holistic way and integrated way still gets reframed in old thinking…. Attitudes of public and the new public ie people who don’t know ( or may not even pay attention to or even understand at some points) about health or the people who deliver/work in or promote… each generation perspectives varyEconomic drivers or other drivers that cause shifts….Again definitions and interpretations to titles vary across the country and across globeHence importance of some key titles and knowledge base is already there to support thatNursing has been and evolved over time to be involved with communities/people not just in ‘sick’ capacity but in healthWork by J many years back on protecting title nurseThe commission on nursingGlobal organizationsWork internationally by theorists/academics/researchers/practice/education ongoing Wider numbers interconnectivity Impacts of social networking and the likeImpacts of systemic research as opposed to alternative/disciplinary/mixed/qualitative/and so onChanges in provisionsExistence of illness yes… approaches different yes….nano technology – ethics- new discoveries ethics…. Alternative/complementary work as opposed to invasive work….. Extensions of how react to health .. disease……New extensions Etc etc etc Kind Regards Fogarty From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 11 January 2012 21:37 Subject: Re: NMC Review of third part of register: health visitingUniversity Campus Suffolk is the trading name of University Campus Suffolk Ltd. Registered in England and Wales, company number: 05078498.Registered Address: Waterfront Building, Neptune Quay, Ipswich, IP4 1QJ Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Sign In

RE: NMC Review of third part of register: health visiting

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity