Re: CHRE strategic review [1 Attachment]

[Guest guest]

Will read with interest and comment! Liz

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

CHRE strategic review [1 Attachment]

Another excoriating report on NMC performance attached, or see

http://www.nmc-uk.org/Press-and-media/Latest-news/NMC-responds-to-CHRE-reports/

I must say, I find it very dispiriting that our regulator is so

consistently in the firing line - but the CHRE do not fill me with

confidence either. They have clearly signalled in this publication

(para 5.8) that the NMC should look at closing the third part of the

register, and criticise NMC for 'straying into a broader professional

leadership' role (para 4.4). I find it mystifying that at one and the

same time the regulator is supposed to 'maintain the confidence of

the public,' yet (unless I have misunderstood) it is only supposed to

focus on the basic standards for qualification, the 'fitness for

practice' issue.

How are those standards to be decided and enforced, without a broader

understanding of how the profession should operate and without

leadership to determine their application? No wonder the NMC is a

mess, if the body responsible for regulating it (CHRE is effectively

the 'ofsted' of the professional regulators) is, itself, so

antagonistic and lacking in clarity. Am I just being grumpy, or does

it make sense to anyone else?

best wishes

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi Haven't read it yet but it makes sense and would be really good as a letter to the nursing press – what do you think? NT ideally. I also wonder whether you should point that para out to the Law Commission now we have a relationship with them and they are doing their report. Its another example of why health visiting is so poorly served by the NMC. Indeed perhaps we should offer to address the council on that? Certainly it needs to be a briefing for the iHV I think.CheryllThe information contained in this email message and any attachments is

confidential and is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received

this message in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately. The

unauthorised use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is

strictly forbidden, as is passing it to a third party without the prior

permission of the sender. From: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>Reply- < >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:44:06 +0100 < >Subject: CHRE strategic review [1 Attachment]Another excoriating report on NMC performance attached, or see http://www.nmc-uk.org/Press-and-media/Latest-news/NMC-responds-to-CHRE-reports/ I must say, I find it very dispiriting that our regulator is so consistently in the firing line - but the CHRE do not fill me with confidence either. They have clearly signalled in this publication (para 5.8) that the NMC should look at closing the third part of the register, and criticise NMC for 'straying into a broader professional leadership' role (para 4.4). I find it mystifying that at one and the same time the regulator is supposed to 'maintain the confidence of the public,' yet (unless I have misunderstood) it is only supposed to focus on the basic standards for qualification, the 'fitness for practice' issue. How are those standards to be decided and enforced, without a broader understanding of how the profession should operate and without leadership to determine their application? No wonder the NMC is a mess, if the body responsible for regulating it (CHRE is effectively the 'ofsted' of the professional regulators) is, itself, so antagonistic and lacking in clarity. Am I just being grumpy, or does it make sense to anyone else?best wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn