Guest guest Posted March 11, 2002 Report Share Posted March 11, 2002 In a message dated 3/11/02 1:15:18 PM Central Standard Time, writes: > Hi all: > > I'm looking for " real life " examples (but no names used) of kids to plot on > growth charts to show a change in the rate of growth: either up or down. I > also need an example of a child whose rate of growth has remained > relatively constant. > > One of these will be selected and plotted on a growth chart as an example > in a chapter about weight management for people with down syndrome. While > it's easy to make this stuff up, I thought it would be better to have > " real-life " examples. It'd be great if the child involved is at least 13. > > If you would like to share, please send dates, height, and weight (let me > know if they're in cm, inches, pounds, or kg) by March 15. > > Thanks so much!!! > > Joan > Joan, I've got a kid that was lower 25% of growth chart until last year when he grew 5 inches or so and gained weight. He is still slim though. I only have heights and weights since age seven but I can get you the info if you want it. let me know. Karyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 oh boy the dating nightmares....Tab! you go girlfriend. Just this story bought back too many crazee (good & bad) memories. I remember the boys thinking I would be "easy" because I was a "cripple" boy did they learn different!!! I recall my first beau who said I was beatiful and I thought "man, he is crazeeee, how could anyone think of me with my deformities as beautiful". The memories most of which are bittersweet will always remain and be cherished. I am not sure that young love/relationships differ tremendously for those who face their varied differences (for us..JRA) and those who are "normal" (whatever that means). I see alot of youth and their is always an issue(s).Too short, too tall,too skinny, too fat, popular, not popular, poor, rich, athletic, boring...the list goes on and on!!! I personally believes what matters is the self respect one has given to themselves.Self worth and self esteem go further than any of the mentioned attributes! Just yesterday my 11 year old son had a g/friend dilemma...as an otherwise healthy, athletic type fella he had been asked by a popular girl in his class to go "out" (whatever that means when you are 11-if anyone knows please share..LOL). Then come to find out it was all a bet...she and another boy had made a bet to see who could get someone to go out with them first!!! My son said to me, Mom I dont think thats right! I assurred him it was not. He then said She is pretty but it dont matter now..I dont think that was nice..KIDS.. ya gotta love em!!! Being young and dealing with first loves are never easy but assure your kiddos they are loved for who they are and they should do the same..love and hugs to u all! Donna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 just another note on love and I will try to keep this one short. At my sons 5th grade graduation the ECE children also took part as they should! Two of the children , one with downs syndrome, the other various mental disabilities stood side by side. the young man stood front row and hid his face behind his hands 1/2 way through the program. Finally the beautiful young lady (who had downs syndrome)who had danced the entire program stood next to the young man, looked at him with his face hid and placed her hands on his, pulled his hands away from his face so everyone could see him. She held his hands in the air as to say to him, You are a champ! Some noticed this display of affection, some did not. I was a fortunate one because I in a 15 minute period seen what Love Is really about. After the event the majority of the graduating class reveled in what had occured on stage and many went to the young lady and held her hands high in the air...In the end they were all champs to me and this is an evening I will not soon forget! Donna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 What a beautiful story! Eli and Riley 4 poly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Reminder. Not all of us have broad band connections - the poor country cousins as it were. Long messages take longer to receive. Plus, some of us get this group in Digest form. If you just hit reply, then put some 25 word or less witticism at the top of a long sequence of posts and replies, we have to scroll all the way thru them to get to the next message. Control-A, then Delete clears the old stuff from being quoted. (This is my tilting at windmills thing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 I bit my tongue. Re: Digest Number 1432 Digest Number 1432 > > There are 6 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. VA Launches Hep C Web Site > From: " Rocco ARTURO " <SSbn635Gold@...> > 2. Re: Sally > From: Carol <csean@...> > 3. RE: Sally > From: " Sally Hines " <shines@...> > 4. Re: Sally > From: land <lands142@...> > 5. RE: Sally > From: " Sally Hines " <shines@...> > 6. Re: Willem > From: Carol <csean@...> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > ________________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 I bit my tongue. Re: Digest Number 1432 Digest Number 1432 > > There are 6 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. VA Launches Hep C Web Site > From: " Rocco ARTURO " <SSbn635Gold@...> > 2. Re: Sally > From: Carol <csean@...> > 3. RE: Sally > From: " Sally Hines " <shines@...> > 4. Re: Sally > From: land <lands142@...> > 5. RE: Sally > From: " Sally Hines " <shines@...> > 6. Re: Willem > From: Carol <csean@...> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > ________________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 In a message dated 3/22/2004 5:22:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes: From: " cfladaisy " <cfladaisy@...> Subject: Re: No More Myoclonus Jerks Well thank you ....I am going to check out the books and sites you suggested...I would much rather do this naturally....the cause of his seizures (1) maybe 2....they say is because of scar tissue from the brain injury....so I am not sure if diet supplements, biofeedback etc. can help...I would be so happy if we didn't have to take prescriptions....I hate chemicals. My husband is such a wonderfully vital and alive person I just am heartbroken to see him in a depressed state with the meds he is taking....again thank you for your help...hope to get lots of info....if anyone else has any suggestions feel free to jump in and help PLEASE.....Chris ----- Original Message ----- >>>> Chris First, thanks for saving me from again posting some of those great references. Secondly, because it is trauma related, both cranialsacral therapy (www.upledger.com) and neurofeedback with HEG training may well be especially helpful. mjh http://foxhillfarm.us/FireBasil/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 >because it is trauma related, both cranialsacral therapy > (www.upledger.com) and neurofeedback with HEG training may well be especially helpful.> Those would be the first avenues I would pursue too...also perhaps a Neuro-Chiropractor. I neglected in my other post to mention Chinese Medicine, Herbs, Accupunture and Biochemical Medicine. Good luck with the search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Also might check into the oxygen therapy that posted information about ahile back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 thank you so much ...I will check in to everything I can get my hands on.....Chris [ ] Re: Digest Number 1432 >because it is trauma related, both cranialsacral therapy > (www.upledger.com) and neurofeedback with HEG training may well be especially helpful.> Those would be the first avenues I would pursue too...also perhaps a Neuro-Chiropractor. I neglected in my other post to mention Chinese Medicine, Herbs, Accupunture and Biochemical Medicine. Good luck with the search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 I've been told, and I believe from my own personal experience, that it doesn't matter what caused the first seizure. Its like when your body shuts down due to too much heat. After it happens the first time, your body can't take the amount of heat it used to. I would suggest neuro-feedback therapy just for that reason alone. Good Luck, Lorinda foxhillers@... wrote: In a message dated 3/22/2004 5:22:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes: From: " cfladaisy " <cfladaisy@...> Subject: Re: No More Myoclonus Jerks Well thank you ....I am going to check out the books and sites you suggested...I would much rather do this naturally....the cause of his seizures (1) maybe 2....they say is because of scar tissue from the brain injury....so I am not sure if diet supplements, biofeedback etc. can help...I would be so happy if we didn't have to take prescriptions....I hate chemicals. My husband is such a wonderfully vital and alive person I just am heartbroken to see him in a depressed state with the meds he is taking....again thank you for your help...hope to get lots of info....if anyone else has any suggestions feel free to jump in and help PLEASE.....Chris ----- Original Message ----- >>>> Chris First, thanks for saving me from again posting some of those great references. Secondly, because it is trauma related, both cranialsacral therapy (www.upledger.com) and neurofeedback with HEG training may well be especially helpful. mjh http://foxhillfarm.us/FireBasil/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 thank you Lorinda......I will check THAT out also....ANYTHING other than meds....Chris Re: No More Myoclonus Jerks Well thank you ....I am going to check out the books and sites you suggested...I would much rather do this naturally....the cause of his seizures (1) maybe 2....they say is because of scar tissue from the brain injury....so I am not sure if diet supplements, biofeedback etc. can help...I would be so happy if we didn't have to take prescriptions....I hate chemicals. My husband is such a wonderfully vital and alive person I just am heartbroken to see him in a depressed state with the meds he is taking....again thank you for your help...hope to get lots of info....if anyone else has any suggestions feel free to jump in and help PLEASE.....Chris ----- Original Message ----- >>>> Chris First, thanks for saving me from again posting some of those great references. Secondly, because it is trauma related, both cranialsacral therapy (www.upledger.com) and neurofeedback with HEG training may well be especially helpful. mjh http://foxhillfarm.us/FireBasil/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 Morning Many neurologists may not agree with THAT...just so you know. However, I think you should check out this site: http://www.besweb.com/HealthProIntro/NeurologistsComments/ I am not a pro..but ,M.D. is Seems we are all dealing with causes, triggers and modulators. As I have gotten older and more sensitive, my trigger list has become more lengthy. I wish when it had started, I had taken the bull by the horns. Good luck to you and your husband, Lorinda > In a message dated 3/22/2004 5:22:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, > writes: > From: " cfladaisy " <cfladaisy@a...> > Subject: Re: No More Myoclonus Jerks > > Well thank you ....I am going to check out the books and sites you > suggested...I would much rather do this naturally....the cause of his seizures > (1) maybe 2....they say is because of scar tissue from the brain injury....so I > am not sure if diet supplements, biofeedback etc. can help...I would be so > happy if we didn't have to take prescriptions....I hate chemicals. My husband is > such a wonderfully vital and alive person I just am heartbroken to see him in > a depressed state with the meds he is taking....again thank you for your > help...hope to get lots of info....if anyone else has any suggestions feel free to > jump in and help PLEASE.....Chris > ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> > > Chris > > First, thanks for saving me from again posting some of those great > references. > > Secondly, because it is trauma related, both cranialsacral therapy > (www.upledger.com) and neurofeedback with HEG training may well be especially helpful. > > mjh > http://foxhillfarm.us/FireBasil/ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Dear and all On the theme of assessment I had a terrible allergic reaction to formal needs assessment following the London study that I worked on with because the clients absolutely hated it. They smilled and helped staff to get through the lengthy process of ticking all the boxes but privately to the researcher they shared what they really thought about being assessed by the state! Most felt patronised, some were very tolerant because it was a nice health visitor, some blamed the health visiting manager, some were turned off the whole service because of the assessment, some people (and it was hard to be on the receiving end) were very very angry. You see not everybody knew they had been assessed formally because it hadn't been a shared process but more of a one sided paperwork exercise formalised back at the office and therein lies the danger!!! Into the assessment mix here is a briefing note on the new coming to your area soon Common Assessment Process, (CAP) I am not passing judgement on CAP as I haven't had time to get to grips with it yet. This is a briefing note from last year taken from the web - this appeared in Children Now - on the idea of CAP: Briefing: Crib Sheet - Common assessment Payne, Policy Unit, National Children's Bureau, 28 September 2004 As part of Every Child Matters the Government wants to create a framework that will lead to a common needs assessment approach. More from Every Child Matters? Yes, another piece of the puzzle. The green paper referred to the creation of a common assessment framework. The Government sees it as being the main and sometimes only assessment instrument " to be used at the first sign of emerging vulnerability " , and to act as a marker for referral to another agency or specialist service. Assessing what precisely? This consultation paper is looking at the proposed purpose of the common assessment, and how it will work. It also looks at how it will be developed and implemented, but not the materials themselves. The Department for Education and Skills is running a series of seminars through October as part of its consultation. But what's wrong with my old clipboard and a piece of foolscap? Assessments are often used to make a decision about whether or not a child meets some sort of threshold criterion to trigger delivery of a service. A common assessment should lead to a common approach to needs assessment, more of an initial assessment that can be used by statutory or voluntary-sector workers in education, early years, health, police, youth justice or social care. Systems like Asset in youth justice would continue, building on this initial, common assessment. The hope is that having such a framework will reduce the number of assessments that a child undergoes, break down professional boundaries and improve information sharing. But why are they linking information sharing and assessment now? To encourage that wider culture change across the children's workforce advocated by the green paper. The framework may consist of: general guidance on its use; a common procedure for assessment; a methodology based on the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families that includes considerations of child development and how to communicate with children and their parents or carers; gaining consent; how to record the findings and identify an appropriate response; how to share information when a child moves between local authority areas and an explanation of the roles and responsibilities of different agencies and practitioners. The framework should also " be known " to workers in adult services and agencies that may not focus on the needs of children but contribute to reaching those five child-centred aspects of wellbeing highlighted in the Children Bill. You mentioned consent, tell me more. It's quite explicit: the Government wants the common assessment to be completed with the full knowledge, consent and involvement of children and young people and their parents. The multi-disciplinary expert group advising the DfES on the assessment framework has listed a number of conditions integral to its development, including the stipulation that it be child-centred, ensure equality of opportunity, be solution- and action-focused, and be an ongoing process rather than a one-off event. And when will this happen? In December 2004 the DfES plans to publish an implementation plan for the framework. The Government will issue the information sharing guidance to the Children Bill in early 2005 which will make it clear that the relevant bodies will have to use the framework. Local authorities will receive detailed guidance on the framework itself, and are expected to champion its use within their own work and through the local children's trust. FACT BOX - In the children in need census week, there were about 388,200 children in need known to require social services: 18 per cent were looked-after children, 82 per cent were children supported in families or living independently (DfES, Feb 2004) - The Common Assessment Framework consultation paper is available from the DfES web site at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/ACFA006.pdf - Responses are due by 17 November 2004. >From: >Reply- > >Subject: Digest Number 1432 >Date: 19 Feb 2005 22:56:27 -0000 > > > >There are 3 messages in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > From: Cowley <sarah@...> > 2. Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > From: Cowley <sarah@...> > 3. Re: RE: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > From: Cowley <sarah@...> > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:23:26 +0000 > From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Subject: Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > >Cheryll, sorry for the slow reply; I have been in Dublin this week and >am just catching up with this important piece of work. I am very >pleased that you are involved in helping to develop these guidelines, >but wonder why the focus is on assessing " risk " ? Is this just because >of the medico-nursing hegemony, and their emphasis on abnormality? > Surely " normal postnatal care " should be about focusing on strengths >and resources for health held with the family, with services helping to >promote opportunities for infant development and good health, bearing in >mind the five positive outcomes promoted in the " Every Child Matters " >document (i.e., being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; >making a positive contribution and economic well-being)? Certainly, >midwifery and health visiting approaches have traditionally been to >emphasise positive health, rather than being wholly and solely focused >on negative health and " risk, " which is more common in disease-focused >services like medicine, nursing etc. Also, there is a good deal of >health visiting research ( Chalmers, Ina Machin, on and >Cowley etc., etc; I can give you a long list if you like!) to show that >proactive and universal services are most acceptable when they emphasise >normality, even where that co-exists with vulnerability. Even the NSF, >with its requirement for a child health plan in the first year, allows >for positive health. > >Is there any chance of re-focusing the NICE discussion, do you think? > Perhaps positive health is in a different stream of work, and the risk >aspect is (as it should be) only one very small aspect of the overall >guidance for normal post-natal care. > >In respect of core programmes of visiting, we are just beginning to >analyse the results from the D-SCOVOR survey (many thanks to anyone who >returned a questionnaire) and I have some simple descriptive statistics >for the 'core programme'. There are a couple of provisos about the >results: first, these are the services that respondents reported as >being on offer in their area; we have no way of knowing whether >their perceptions are accurate, but equally, no reason to doubt them (we >asked if people knew how services were organised in their area, and if >the answer to that question was 'no,' then we asked respondents to move >to the next section). However, which is the second point, people seemed >to find it extremely difficult to identify what constituted a 'core, >universal service' or what were 'scheduled home visits.' Lots of >respondents wrote little essays explaining alternatives and variations >on the theme; we are still trying to unravel those! > >Those provisos aside, the basic figures show: ante-natal visit, 56%; >new birth visit 98% (90% before 14 days; 7% between 10 days and 5 >weeks); number of routine follow-up home visits between new birth visit >and eight weeks of age: 1 visit = 26%; 2 visits = 20%; 3 visits = 7%; 4 >visits = 10%; 5 visits = 12%; 24% commented that the number varies as >required (so not answering the question about how many ALL families >receive). However, whilst this is said to be the core service, 49% >state that it is not always feasible to offer all prescribed core >contacts. The core service is believed to be sufficient to meet the >needs of all families in the area by 11% and for most families by 49%; >we have not yet looked to see how those perceptions vary with the number >of scheduled visits. PND screening is offered at home by 73% as part >of the core service; 83% offer it face-to-face altogether (i.e., >including clinic provision; an additional 1% screen by post, and 1% by >telephone). Health visitors provide all of the core service in 29% of >cases; elsewhere it is provided in conjunction with other team members >such as registered nurses (21%), nursery nurses/family support workers >(49%) and clinic asistants/health support workers (25%), or in >collaboration with other professionals in 15% of cases. In some places, >teams had two or more different skill mix workers, so these results add >up to more than 100%. > >There is an absolute wealth of information that could be obtained from >the data by looking at e.g. postcodes and extent to which health >visiting services are perceived as being about primary prevention, early >intervention or dealing with established problems etc, if only we had >the time and funding to support that analysis. Perhaps NICE would like >to fund it?! > >best wishes > > > > > >, Cheryll wrote: > > >I am involved with the NICE guideline for normal postnatal care. We are >about to embark on looking at service delivery postnatally and in >particular the issue of assessing risk. I wonder if Senate members would >be prepared to share with me any good tools they are using in practice? If >their use is backed by research, audit or evaluation it would be extremely >helpful to have the details of that as well. > > > >Can I also ask you about core programmes of visiting. Are any Trusts >supporting more that a new birth and perhaps a 6 week (EPDS) visit as part >of the core programme? Hopefully at least first time mothers have more >contact than that in the first 6 weeks but I imagine these won't be part of >the core programme or necessarily via home visits? > > > >Many thanks > > > >Cheryll > > > > > > > >Cheryll > >Professional Officer, Research and Practice Development > >Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > >40 Bermondsey St > >London SE1 3UD > > > >Tel/Fax: 01243 430 545 > > > >E-mail: Cheryll.@... > >web: www.amicus-cphva.org.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:25:44 +0000 > From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Subject: Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > >What a wonderful resource ; thank you for sharing this. I wonder >if you have any wisdom about when, or in which circumstances, these >tools are most useful? One of the confusing issues that surfaced for > Houston and I, when we were looking at structured, generic needs >assessment tools, was that one Trust where we carried out the study had >lifted various questions from research-based tools (including those >designed for assessing population health, not individuals) and some >diagnostic tools, and incorporated them into a kind of 'holy grail' of >risk/needs assessment schedule to be used in practice on all parents to >decide the frequency of future visiting for any reason whatsoever. > >We spent some time trying to unravel the various contradictions, and >concluded that three different types of assessment tools are needed: >(1) those which are necessary for public health and prioritising >purposes, to assess needs in an area; (2) those which are useful for >screening and targeting individuals, that are basically diagnostic and >focused on one particular issue (e.g., PND, relationship stress etc) and >(3) those which served a general, health promoting purpose and were >intended to empower and enable people to identify and act on their own >health needs, whatever they are. The key thing, is that each type has >its own different purpose and principles and cannot follow the >expectations of the other two; even though many Trusts try to find a >three-in-one catch-all, do everything tool. I guess the overall >message is that you cannot use an instrument to replace professional >judgement, because you have to know which one to use when, or at all. > That paper is: > >Cowley S & Houston A (2004) Contradictory agendas in health visitor >needs assessment. A discussion paper of its use for prioritizing, >targeting and promoting health. Primary Health Care Research and >Development. 5: 240-254 > >That paper might be useful for your work with NICE, as well, Cheryll. I >would be very interested in hearing whether these comments resonate with >any experiences that people have in practice. best wishes > > > > >lowenhoff wrote: > > >Cheryll > >Busy writing our infant mental health strategy - thinking about > >recommending use of Robin Balbernie' s tool to measure 'stress on the > >caregiving relationship' and the parent infant relationship global > >assessment scale - I can send you copies from my work email address if > >you like as I have them on file there. I will aso have to check with > >Robin that this is OK unless you want to contact him direct ot maybe you > >already have access to these tools? In my travels around the internet I > >have also been making note of any tools that I thought I might think > >were useful.....! they are attached herewith in a very primitive state > > > > Lowenhoff > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:26:48 +0000 > From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Subject: Re: RE: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > >, thanks for these; Pridham's work seems to be cropping up all >over the place lately, and it is very worthwhile. I would interested in >hearing from anyone who has used these instruments as well. In >particular, I am interested in how any instruments validated for use in >research get picked up, if at all, and used in practice. In most >instances, they are not suitable for simply transplanting from the >research environment into practice, however invaluable the insights from >the study; a further study is generally required to show whether they >are suited to the practice environment. These 'translational studies' >(horrible term; widely used in medical circles!) are very few and far >between. There are cultural issues to be considered when instruments >are developed overseas as well. A key question for the NICE guidelines >seems to be, if a person believes they need support, and a professional >thinks so too, is that a valid reason for providing it? What do others >think? best wishes > > > > Whittaker wrote: > > > Hello Cheryl > > Don't know if this will be if interest to you? I came across some > > outcome measures aimed at the postnatal period, although not in use in > > the UK as far as I'm aware. These are the " What being a parent of a > > baby is like (WPL-R) " developed by Pridham see Pridham & > > Chang(1985) Research in Nursing and Health. 8:19-29. and Pridham et al > > (1994) Research in Nursing and Health 17: 381-392 > > and the Reece, " postpartum parental expectations survey " in Reece, SM > > (1995) Stress and maternal adaptation in first time mothers more than > > 35 years old. Applied Nursing Research. 8(2):61-6. Reece also used > > the WPL-R in her study. > > I have hard copies of both that I previously requested from the > > authors. Both were developed and tested in the US. I used an > > adapted version of the WPL-R ina study of parents with toddlers, but > > do not know of any other UK use. Has anyone else on SENATE used these? > > > > > > > > > > > >[This message contained attachments] > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Dear and all On the theme of assessment I had a terrible allergic reaction to formal needs assessment following the London study that I worked on with because the clients absolutely hated it. They smilled and helped staff to get through the lengthy process of ticking all the boxes but privately to the researcher they shared what they really thought about being assessed by the state! Most felt patronised, some were very tolerant because it was a nice health visitor, some blamed the health visiting manager, some were turned off the whole service because of the assessment, some people (and it was hard to be on the receiving end) were very very angry. You see not everybody knew they had been assessed formally because it hadn't been a shared process but more of a one sided paperwork exercise formalised back at the office and therein lies the danger!!! Into the assessment mix here is a briefing note on the new coming to your area soon Common Assessment Process, (CAP) I am not passing judgement on CAP as I haven't had time to get to grips with it yet. This is a briefing note from last year taken from the web - this appeared in Children Now - on the idea of CAP: Briefing: Crib Sheet - Common assessment Payne, Policy Unit, National Children's Bureau, 28 September 2004 As part of Every Child Matters the Government wants to create a framework that will lead to a common needs assessment approach. More from Every Child Matters? Yes, another piece of the puzzle. The green paper referred to the creation of a common assessment framework. The Government sees it as being the main and sometimes only assessment instrument " to be used at the first sign of emerging vulnerability " , and to act as a marker for referral to another agency or specialist service. Assessing what precisely? This consultation paper is looking at the proposed purpose of the common assessment, and how it will work. It also looks at how it will be developed and implemented, but not the materials themselves. The Department for Education and Skills is running a series of seminars through October as part of its consultation. But what's wrong with my old clipboard and a piece of foolscap? Assessments are often used to make a decision about whether or not a child meets some sort of threshold criterion to trigger delivery of a service. A common assessment should lead to a common approach to needs assessment, more of an initial assessment that can be used by statutory or voluntary-sector workers in education, early years, health, police, youth justice or social care. Systems like Asset in youth justice would continue, building on this initial, common assessment. The hope is that having such a framework will reduce the number of assessments that a child undergoes, break down professional boundaries and improve information sharing. But why are they linking information sharing and assessment now? To encourage that wider culture change across the children's workforce advocated by the green paper. The framework may consist of: general guidance on its use; a common procedure for assessment; a methodology based on the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families that includes considerations of child development and how to communicate with children and their parents or carers; gaining consent; how to record the findings and identify an appropriate response; how to share information when a child moves between local authority areas and an explanation of the roles and responsibilities of different agencies and practitioners. The framework should also " be known " to workers in adult services and agencies that may not focus on the needs of children but contribute to reaching those five child-centred aspects of wellbeing highlighted in the Children Bill. You mentioned consent, tell me more. It's quite explicit: the Government wants the common assessment to be completed with the full knowledge, consent and involvement of children and young people and their parents. The multi-disciplinary expert group advising the DfES on the assessment framework has listed a number of conditions integral to its development, including the stipulation that it be child-centred, ensure equality of opportunity, be solution- and action-focused, and be an ongoing process rather than a one-off event. And when will this happen? In December 2004 the DfES plans to publish an implementation plan for the framework. The Government will issue the information sharing guidance to the Children Bill in early 2005 which will make it clear that the relevant bodies will have to use the framework. Local authorities will receive detailed guidance on the framework itself, and are expected to champion its use within their own work and through the local children's trust. FACT BOX - In the children in need census week, there were about 388,200 children in need known to require social services: 18 per cent were looked-after children, 82 per cent were children supported in families or living independently (DfES, Feb 2004) - The Common Assessment Framework consultation paper is available from the DfES web site at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/ACFA006.pdf - Responses are due by 17 November 2004. >From: >Reply- > >Subject: Digest Number 1432 >Date: 19 Feb 2005 22:56:27 -0000 > > > >There are 3 messages in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > From: Cowley <sarah@...> > 2. Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > From: Cowley <sarah@...> > 3. Re: RE: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > From: Cowley <sarah@...> > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:23:26 +0000 > From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Subject: Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > >Cheryll, sorry for the slow reply; I have been in Dublin this week and >am just catching up with this important piece of work. I am very >pleased that you are involved in helping to develop these guidelines, >but wonder why the focus is on assessing " risk " ? Is this just because >of the medico-nursing hegemony, and their emphasis on abnormality? > Surely " normal postnatal care " should be about focusing on strengths >and resources for health held with the family, with services helping to >promote opportunities for infant development and good health, bearing in >mind the five positive outcomes promoted in the " Every Child Matters " >document (i.e., being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving; >making a positive contribution and economic well-being)? Certainly, >midwifery and health visiting approaches have traditionally been to >emphasise positive health, rather than being wholly and solely focused >on negative health and " risk, " which is more common in disease-focused >services like medicine, nursing etc. Also, there is a good deal of >health visiting research ( Chalmers, Ina Machin, on and >Cowley etc., etc; I can give you a long list if you like!) to show that >proactive and universal services are most acceptable when they emphasise >normality, even where that co-exists with vulnerability. Even the NSF, >with its requirement for a child health plan in the first year, allows >for positive health. > >Is there any chance of re-focusing the NICE discussion, do you think? > Perhaps positive health is in a different stream of work, and the risk >aspect is (as it should be) only one very small aspect of the overall >guidance for normal post-natal care. > >In respect of core programmes of visiting, we are just beginning to >analyse the results from the D-SCOVOR survey (many thanks to anyone who >returned a questionnaire) and I have some simple descriptive statistics >for the 'core programme'. There are a couple of provisos about the >results: first, these are the services that respondents reported as >being on offer in their area; we have no way of knowing whether >their perceptions are accurate, but equally, no reason to doubt them (we >asked if people knew how services were organised in their area, and if >the answer to that question was 'no,' then we asked respondents to move >to the next section). However, which is the second point, people seemed >to find it extremely difficult to identify what constituted a 'core, >universal service' or what were 'scheduled home visits.' Lots of >respondents wrote little essays explaining alternatives and variations >on the theme; we are still trying to unravel those! > >Those provisos aside, the basic figures show: ante-natal visit, 56%; >new birth visit 98% (90% before 14 days; 7% between 10 days and 5 >weeks); number of routine follow-up home visits between new birth visit >and eight weeks of age: 1 visit = 26%; 2 visits = 20%; 3 visits = 7%; 4 >visits = 10%; 5 visits = 12%; 24% commented that the number varies as >required (so not answering the question about how many ALL families >receive). However, whilst this is said to be the core service, 49% >state that it is not always feasible to offer all prescribed core >contacts. The core service is believed to be sufficient to meet the >needs of all families in the area by 11% and for most families by 49%; >we have not yet looked to see how those perceptions vary with the number >of scheduled visits. PND screening is offered at home by 73% as part >of the core service; 83% offer it face-to-face altogether (i.e., >including clinic provision; an additional 1% screen by post, and 1% by >telephone). Health visitors provide all of the core service in 29% of >cases; elsewhere it is provided in conjunction with other team members >such as registered nurses (21%), nursery nurses/family support workers >(49%) and clinic asistants/health support workers (25%), or in >collaboration with other professionals in 15% of cases. In some places, >teams had two or more different skill mix workers, so these results add >up to more than 100%. > >There is an absolute wealth of information that could be obtained from >the data by looking at e.g. postcodes and extent to which health >visiting services are perceived as being about primary prevention, early >intervention or dealing with established problems etc, if only we had >the time and funding to support that analysis. Perhaps NICE would like >to fund it?! > >best wishes > > > > > >, Cheryll wrote: > > >I am involved with the NICE guideline for normal postnatal care. We are >about to embark on looking at service delivery postnatally and in >particular the issue of assessing risk. I wonder if Senate members would >be prepared to share with me any good tools they are using in practice? If >their use is backed by research, audit or evaluation it would be extremely >helpful to have the details of that as well. > > > >Can I also ask you about core programmes of visiting. Are any Trusts >supporting more that a new birth and perhaps a 6 week (EPDS) visit as part >of the core programme? Hopefully at least first time mothers have more >contact than that in the first 6 weeks but I imagine these won't be part of >the core programme or necessarily via home visits? > > > >Many thanks > > > >Cheryll > > > > > > > >Cheryll > >Professional Officer, Research and Practice Development > >Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > >40 Bermondsey St > >London SE1 3UD > > > >Tel/Fax: 01243 430 545 > > > >E-mail: Cheryll.@... > >web: www.amicus-cphva.org.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:25:44 +0000 > From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Subject: Re: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > >What a wonderful resource ; thank you for sharing this. I wonder >if you have any wisdom about when, or in which circumstances, these >tools are most useful? One of the confusing issues that surfaced for > Houston and I, when we were looking at structured, generic needs >assessment tools, was that one Trust where we carried out the study had >lifted various questions from research-based tools (including those >designed for assessing population health, not individuals) and some >diagnostic tools, and incorporated them into a kind of 'holy grail' of >risk/needs assessment schedule to be used in practice on all parents to >decide the frequency of future visiting for any reason whatsoever. > >We spent some time trying to unravel the various contradictions, and >concluded that three different types of assessment tools are needed: >(1) those which are necessary for public health and prioritising >purposes, to assess needs in an area; (2) those which are useful for >screening and targeting individuals, that are basically diagnostic and >focused on one particular issue (e.g., PND, relationship stress etc) and >(3) those which served a general, health promoting purpose and were >intended to empower and enable people to identify and act on their own >health needs, whatever they are. The key thing, is that each type has >its own different purpose and principles and cannot follow the >expectations of the other two; even though many Trusts try to find a >three-in-one catch-all, do everything tool. I guess the overall >message is that you cannot use an instrument to replace professional >judgement, because you have to know which one to use when, or at all. > That paper is: > >Cowley S & Houston A (2004) Contradictory agendas in health visitor >needs assessment. A discussion paper of its use for prioritizing, >targeting and promoting health. Primary Health Care Research and >Development. 5: 240-254 > >That paper might be useful for your work with NICE, as well, Cheryll. I >would be very interested in hearing whether these comments resonate with >any experiences that people have in practice. best wishes > > > > >lowenhoff wrote: > > >Cheryll > >Busy writing our infant mental health strategy - thinking about > >recommending use of Robin Balbernie' s tool to measure 'stress on the > >caregiving relationship' and the parent infant relationship global > >assessment scale - I can send you copies from my work email address if > >you like as I have them on file there. I will aso have to check with > >Robin that this is OK unless you want to contact him direct ot maybe you > >already have access to these tools? In my travels around the internet I > >have also been making note of any tools that I thought I might think > >were useful.....! they are attached herewith in a very primitive state > > > > Lowenhoff > > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:26:48 +0000 > From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Subject: Re: RE: Tools for assessing maternal and/or child risk in health >visiting and core visiting > >, thanks for these; Pridham's work seems to be cropping up all >over the place lately, and it is very worthwhile. I would interested in >hearing from anyone who has used these instruments as well. In >particular, I am interested in how any instruments validated for use in >research get picked up, if at all, and used in practice. In most >instances, they are not suitable for simply transplanting from the >research environment into practice, however invaluable the insights from >the study; a further study is generally required to show whether they >are suited to the practice environment. These 'translational studies' >(horrible term; widely used in medical circles!) are very few and far >between. There are cultural issues to be considered when instruments >are developed overseas as well. A key question for the NICE guidelines >seems to be, if a person believes they need support, and a professional >thinks so too, is that a valid reason for providing it? What do others >think? best wishes > > > > Whittaker wrote: > > > Hello Cheryl > > Don't know if this will be if interest to you? I came across some > > outcome measures aimed at the postnatal period, although not in use in > > the UK as far as I'm aware. These are the " What being a parent of a > > baby is like (WPL-R) " developed by Pridham see Pridham & > > Chang(1985) Research in Nursing and Health. 8:19-29. and Pridham et al > > (1994) Research in Nursing and Health 17: 381-392 > > and the Reece, " postpartum parental expectations survey " in Reece, SM > > (1995) Stress and maternal adaptation in first time mothers more than > > 35 years old. Applied Nursing Research. 8(2):61-6. Reece also used > > the WPL-R in her study. > > I have hard copies of both that I previously requested from the > > authors. Both were developed and tested in the US. I used an > > adapted version of the WPL-R ina study of parents with toddlers, but > > do not know of any other UK use. Has anyone else on SENATE used these? > > > > > > > > > > > >[This message contained attachments] > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 From: Jan Jenson <vizual@...> Restless legs is a definite lack of magnesium. Coming out of lurkdom to make some comments on the restless leg problem. My grandma has this pretty bad too, so I've researched it to find some relief for her. I've experienced it to a mild extent and have to say that if you've never felt RLS, ya just don't know what you're missing 'til you do. Even for the short period of time I felt it on those few occasions, it was enough to make me go a little crazy. 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.