Guest guest Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 I appreciate you trying to identify an acceptable identity that might suit everyone, , but if there were there to be the chance of an official change (which I don't think is on the cards), like , I would prefer to stick to the title 'health visitor.' I hate the long label 'specialist community public health nurse,' but don't think shortening it helps, it is still contested and confusing. Perhaps, instead, we should move the brackets, so that instead of 'specialist community public health nurse (Health Visitor ), it is Health Visitor ( specialist community public health nurse), until the next major reorganisation, when we could, hopefully, drop the brackets and temporary contested title. That formulation may work equally well for school and occupational health, too, although they seem happier to focus on the nursing bit.It might be different for the newly trained and students who are still immersed in their nursing identity, because I think it takes at least a couple of years to make the transition, but for me calling a health visitor 'nurse' is insulting - whatever kind of nurse it is - because it denies the importance of health visiting knowledge and the health visitor qualification. It is a bit like the Americans only acknowledging 'nurse-midwives,' who are far less autonomous than midwives in other countries. Somehow because there are so many nurses, the nursing profession (and I think it is 'profession' thing, not located with individual nurses) feel they have the right to impose their identity on everyone. It is all a bit imperialistic, and doesn't help improve practice, because educational standards are necessarily less appropriate (they are designed for a different occupation), and it creates confusion for staff and service users alike. I can think of all sorts of reasons to NOT call health visitors 'public health nurses,' but can't think of any reason to stop calling them health visitors, even as a shorthand form for a group of practitioners. I wish I could remember the name of the journalist who wrote that calling health visitors 'nurses' because it was more convenient than referring to 'nurses and health visitors' was a bit like the old-fashioned idea of calling women 'men,' because it was more convenient than writing 'men and women;' as if it makes no difference. Just as 'everyone knew' years ago that women didn't mind being bracketed together this way, because 'men and women are all part of mankind.' so there is this unjustified assumption that health visitors don't mind being called public health nurses, or community nurses, or some such thing, because 'they are all part of the family of nursing' (that pernicious phrase that lost us the health visiting register). Also, I can't think of any other occupation that is obliged to continually justify their name, and I am surprised that even now, when we finally have government backing and enthusiasm for health visiting, and when the profession is celebrating 150 years since it began, there still seems to be this push for relabelling. Sorry - rant over: you touched a nerve , which doesn't really have to do with what you wrote!best wishesOn 10 Mar 2012, at 14:18, Whittaker wrote: , an interesting idea. For me, I’d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Coles Sent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name? If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think? size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 Bravo, . Well said! Re: What's in a name? I appreciate you trying to identify an acceptable identity that might suit everyone, , but if there were there to be the chance of an official change (which I don't think is on the cards), like , I would prefer to stick to the title 'health visitor.' I hate the long label 'specialist community public health nurse,' but don't think shortening it helps, it is still contested and confusing. Perhaps, instead, we should move the brackets, so that instead of 'specialist community public health nurse (Health Visitor ), it is Health Visitor ( specialist community public health nurse), until the next major reorganisation, when we could, hopefully, drop the brackets and temporary contested title. That formulation may work equally well for school and occupational health, too, although they seem happier to focus on the nursing bit. It might be different for the newly trained and students who are still immersed in their nursing identity, because I think it takes at least a couple of years to make the transition, but for me calling a health visitor 'nurse' is insulting - whatever kind of nurse it is - because it denies the importance of health visiting knowledge and the health visitor qualification. It is a bit like the Americans only acknowledging 'nurse-midwives,' who are far less autonomous than midwives in other countries. Somehow because there are so many nurses, the nursing profession (and I think it is 'profession' thing, not located with individual nurses) feel they have the right to impose their identity on everyone. It is all a bit imperialistic, and doesn't help improve practice, because educational standards are necessarily less appropriate (they are designed for a different occupation), and it creates confusion for staff and service users alike. I can think of all sorts of reasons to NOT call health visitors 'public health nurses,' but can't think of any reason to stop calling them health visitors, even as a shorthand form for a group of practitioners. I wish I could remember the name of the journalist who wrote that calling health visitors 'nurses' because it was more convenient than referring to 'nurses and health visitors' was a bit like the old-fashioned idea of calling women 'men,' because it was more convenient than writing 'men and women;' as if it makes no difference. Just as 'everyone knew' years ago that women didn't mind being bracketed together this way, because 'men and women are all part of mankind.' so there is this unjustified assumption that health visitors don't mind being called public health nurses, or community nurses, or some such thing, because 'they are all part of the family of nursing' (that pernicious phrase that lost us the health visiting register). Also, I can't think of any other occupation that is obliged to continually justify their name, and I am surprised that even now, when we finally have government backing and enthusiasm for health visiting, and when the profession is celebrating 150 years since it began, there still seems to be this push for relabelling. Sorry - rant over: you touched a nerve , which doesn't really have to do with what you wrote! best wishes On 10 Mar 2012, at 14:18, Whittaker wrote: , an interesting idea. For me, I’d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ColesSent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name? If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think? size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Cowley sarahcowley183@... http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 I totally agree with every word of your rant, . I’m sitting here nodding and agreeing with every word. Rant away girl!!!Pam From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of BidmeadSent: 10 March 2012 18:54 Subject: Re: What's in a name? Bravo, . Well said! Re: What's in a name? I appreciate you trying to identify an acceptable identity that might suit everyone, , but if there were there to be the chance of an official change (which I don't think is on the cards), like , I would prefer to stick to the title 'health visitor.' I hate the long label 'specialist community public health nurse,' but don't think shortening it helps, it is still contested and confusing. Perhaps, instead, we should move the brackets, so that instead of 'specialist community public health nurse (Health Visitor ), it is Health Visitor ( specialist community public health nurse), until the next major reorganisation, when we could, hopefully, drop the brackets and temporary contested title. That formulation may work equally well for school and occupational health, too, although they seem happier to focus on the nursing bit. It might be different for the newly trained and students who are still immersed in their nursing identity, because I think it takes at least a couple of years to make the transition, but for me calling a health visitor 'nurse' is insulting - whatever kind of nurse it is - because it denies the importance of health visiting knowledge and the health visitor qualification. It is a bit like the Americans only acknowledging 'nurse-midwives,' who are far less autonomous than midwives in other countries. Somehow because there are so many nurses, the nursing profession (and I think it is 'profession' thing, not located with individual nurses) feel they have the right to impose their identity on everyone. It is all a bit imperialistic, and doesn't help improve practice, because educational standards are necessarily less appropriate (they are designed for a different occupation), and it creates confusion for staff and service users alike. I can think of all sorts of reasons to NOT call health visitors 'public health nurses,' but can't think of any reason to stop calling them health visitors, even as a shorthand form for a group of practitioners. I wish I could remember the name of the journalist who wrote that calling health visitors 'nurses' because it was more convenient than referring to 'nurses and health visitors' was a bit like the old-fashioned idea of calling women 'men,' because it was more convenient than writing 'men and women;' as if it makes no difference. Just as 'everyone knew' years ago that women didn't mind being bracketed together this way, because 'men and women are all part of mankind.' so there is this unjustified assumption that health visitors don't mind being called public health nurses, or community nurses, or some such thing, because 'they are all part of the family of nursing' (that pernicious phrase that lost us the health visiting register). Also, I can't think of any other occupation that is obliged to continually justify their name, and I am surprised that even now, when we finally have government backing and enthusiasm for health visiting, and when the profession is celebrating 150 years since it began, there still seems to be this push for relabelling. Sorry - rant over: you touched a nerve , which doesn't really have to do with what you wrote! best wishes On 10 Mar 2012, at 14:18, Whittaker wrote: , an interesting idea. For me, I’d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ColesSent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name? If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think?size=1 width= " 100% " noshade color= " #a0a0a0 " align=center> No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2012 Report Share Posted March 10, 2012 I see you qualified the same year as I did, Maggie. It's not so much the change of name, but the lack of any cogent argument for changing it in the first place. I don't count those half baked ideas like making us all sound the same. It's hardly a sound principle - you'd think they wanted to confuse and mislead the public! Clients know perfectly well what a health visitor is, just as they know what a midwife or a paediatrician is, once they have anything to do with them. It's an established title. We visit people and help them meet their health needs. It seems a perfectly servicable title and I'm proud of it. Changing our longstanding professional title seems to obsess some people. I think if they hadn't been so irrational about this over the last 18 years, one might've eventually agreed with and grudgingly compromised for the sake of a quiet life. Fundamentally, the whole thing seems as pointless as that silly 'Consignia' name they were going to foist on the Post Office, but it makes you suspicious when they keep banging on about it. " Senate " < > From: mfisher2241@... Date sent: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:31:54 +0000 Subject: Re: What's in a name? Send reply to: SENATE- HVSN Me too although I qualified as a HV in 1982 Best wishes MaggieSent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: " Whittaker " <kwhittaker1@...> Sender: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:18:33 -0000 < > Reply Subject: RE: What's in a name? , an interesting idea. For me, I´d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989. From: [mailto:SENATE- HVSN ] On Behalf Of Coles Sent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name? If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think? size=1 width= " 100% " noshade color= " #a0a0a0 " align=center> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Hi I agree . I think we should stick to the name Health Visitor. It's the name the public know and trust. Best wishesTheresaProfessional Lead for Health Visiting and Senior Project Manager for Warwickshire Early Implementer SiteSent from my iPhoneOn 10 Mar 2012, at 18:04, Cowley <sarahcowley183@...> wrote: I appreciate you trying to identify an acceptable identity that might suit everyone, , but if there were there to be the chance of an official change (which I don't think is on the cards), like , I would prefer to stick to the title 'health visitor.' I hate the long label 'specialist community public health nurse,' but don't think shortening it helps, it is still contested and confusing. Perhaps, instead, we should move the brackets, so that instead of 'specialist community public health nurse (Health Visitor ), it is Health Visitor ( specialist community public health nurse), until the next major reorganisation, when we could, hopefully, drop the brackets and temporary contested title. That formulation may work equally well for school and occupational health, too, although they seem happier to focus on the nursing bit.It might be different for the newly trained and students who are still immersed in their nursing identity, because I think it takes at least a couple of years to make the transition, but for me calling a health visitor 'nurse' is insulting - whatever kind of nurse it is - because it denies the importance of health visiting knowledge and the health visitor qualification. It is a bit like the Americans only acknowledging 'nurse-midwives,' who are far less autonomous than midwives in other countries. Somehow because there are so many nurses, the nursing profession (and I think it is 'profession' thing, not located with individual nurses) feel they have the right to impose their identity on everyone. It is all a bit imperialistic, and doesn't help improve practice, because educational standards are necessarily less appropriate (they are designed for a different occupation), and it creates confusion for staff and service users alike. I can think of all sorts of reasons to NOT call health visitors 'public health nurses,' but can't think of any reason to stop calling them health visitors, even as a shorthand form for a group of practitioners. I wish I could remember the name of the journalist who wrote that calling health visitors 'nurses' because it was more convenient than referring to 'nurses and health visitors' was a bit like the old-fashioned idea of calling women 'men,' because it was more convenient than writing 'men and women;' as if it makes no difference. Just as 'everyone knew' years ago that women didn't mind being bracketed together this way, because 'men and women are all part of mankind.' so there is this unjustified assumption that health visitors don't mind being called public health nurses, or community nurses, or some such thing, because 'they are all part of the family of nursing' (that pernicious phrase that lost us the health visiting register). Also, I can't think of any other occupation that is obliged to continually justify their name, and I am surprised that even now, when we finally have government backing and enthusiasm for health visiting, and when the profession is celebrating 150 years since it began, there still seems to be this push for relabelling. Sorry - rant over: you touched a nerve , which doesn't really have to do with what you wrote!best wishesOn 10 Mar 2012, at 14:18, Whittaker wrote: , an interesting idea. For me, I’d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Coles Sent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name? If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think? size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 I agree, , the public know as health visitors and not a PH nurse or SCPHN. I have never called myself any of those other titles as they seem so foreign and don't describe what I do. I am a health visitor and intend to stay one, I can't see the public getting uesd to calling us anything else either. Best wishesMaggie RE: What's in a name?, an interesting idea. For me, I´d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ColesSent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name?If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think?size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Well said Maggie, I couldn't agree more! TheresaSent from my iPhoneOn 11 Mar 2012, at 21:35, "Maggie Fisher" <mfisher2241@...> wrote: I agree, , the public know as health visitors and not a PH nurse or SCPHN. I have never called myself any of those other titles as they seem so foreign and don't describe what I do. I am a health visitor and intend to stay one, I can't see the public getting uesd to calling us anything else either. Best wishesMaggie RE: What's in a name?, an interesting idea. For me, I´d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ColesSent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name?If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think?size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 I agree with Maggie but I would not wish to lose the opportunity of our own Register and recognition by not willing to negotiate and compromise.Its just the compromise must reflect we are first and foremost health visitors and to that end a discrete group of professionals. LizSent using BlackBerry® from OrangeFrom: "Maggie Fisher" <mfisher2241@...>Sender: Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:35:06 -0000< >Reply Subject: Re: What's in a name? I agree, , the public know as health visitors and not a PH nurse or SCPHN. I have never called myself any of those other titles as they seem so foreign and don't describe what I do. I am a health visitor and intend to stay one, I can't see the public getting uesd to calling us anything else either. Best wishesMaggie RE: What's in a name?, an interesting idea. For me, I´d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989.From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ColesSent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name?If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think?size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 its deja vu -I remember this kind of email from you (and like minded others in 2001- 2002) before NMC changes.But, for what it is worth I think you are definately on the winning side.I hope you never stop campaigning and working for the profession!Best wishes Ann Ebeid From: sarahcowley183@...Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:04:33 +0000Subject: Re: What's in a name? I appreciate you trying to identify an acceptable identity that might suit everyone, , but if there were there to be the chance of an official change (which I don't think is on the cards), like , I would prefer to stick to the title 'health visitor.' I hate the long label 'specialist community public health nurse,' but don't think shortening it helps, it is still contested and confusing. Perhaps, instead, we should move the brackets, so that instead of 'specialist community public health nurse (Health Visitor ), it is Health Visitor ( specialist community public health nurse), until the next major reorganisation, when we could, hopefully, drop the brackets and temporary contested title. That formulation may work equally well for school and occupational health, too, although they seem happier to focus on the nursing bit.It might be different for the newly trained and students who are still immersed in their nursing identity, because I think it takes at least a couple of years to make the transition, but for me calling a health visitor 'nurse' is insulting - whatever kind of nurse it is - because it denies the importance of health visiting knowledge and the health visitor qualification. It is a bit like the Americans only acknowledging 'nurse-midwives,' who are far less autonomous than midwives in other countries. Somehow because there are so many nurses, the nursing profession (and I think it is 'profession' thing, not located with individual nurses) feel they have the right to impose their identity on everyone. It is all a bit imperialistic, and doesn't help improve practice, because educational standards are necessarily less appropriate (they are designed for a different occupation), and it creates confusion for staff and service users alike. I can think of all sorts of reasons to NOT call health visitors 'public health nurses,' but can't think of any reason to stop calling them health visitors, even as a shorthand form for a group of practitioners. I wish I could remember the name of the journalist who wrote that calling health visitors 'nurses' because it was more convenient than referring to 'nurses and health visitors' was a bit like the old-fashioned idea of calling women 'men,' because it was more convenient than writing 'men and women;' as if it makes no difference. Just as 'everyone knew' years ago that women didn't mind being bracketed together this way, because 'men and women are all part of mankind.' so there is this unjustified assumption that health visitors don't mind being called public health nurses, or community nurses, or some such thing, because 'they are all part of the family of nursing' (that pernicious phrase that lost us the health visiting register). Also, I can't think of any other occupation that is obliged to continually justify their name, and I am surprised that even now, when we finally have government backing and enthusiasm for health visiting, and when the profession is celebrating 150 years since it began, there still seems to be this push for relabelling. Sorry - rant over: you touched a nerve , which doesn't really have to do with what you wrote!best wishesOn 10 Mar 2012, at 14:18, Whittaker wrote: , an interesting idea. For me, I’d prefer to just be a health visitor and stand by the title that I qualified with in 1989. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Coles Sent: 10 March 2012 11:20 Subject: What's in a name? If the NMC could become the NMPHC there could be registered public health visitors (reflecting the public health roots of health visiting rather than the nursing association). Those that are to be both nurses and health visitors for Regional differences in population need could be public health nurse visitors. Maybe too much compromise. What do others think? size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4862 - Release Date: 03/10/12 Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.