forwarded message

[Guest guest]

OMG! That is sooooooo sad! I hope it's not true. That man had so many

emotional problems and was starving for attention and affection and God knows

what

else. This breaks my heart for him and his daughter. I hope he has found some

peace also.

God Bless Him,

Tammy

[Guest guest]

OMG! That is sooooooo sad! I hope it's not true. That man had so many emotional problems and was starving for attention and affection and God knows what else. This breaks my heart for him and his daughter. I hope he has found some peace also.

God Bless Him,

Tammy

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/16/2004 2:13:16 PM Central Standard Time,

suzygriffin@... writes:

Tammy, I think we belong to the same groups...you are talking about

a message on our AOL group. This isn't the one, LOL.

But yes, the news is very sad and unexpected!

Hugs and prayers,

Suzy

Sorry, the names are so close. lol

[Guest guest]

Tammy, I think we belong to the same groups...you are talking about

a message on our AOL group. This isn't the one, LOL.

But yes, the news is very sad and unexpected!

Hugs and prayers,

Suzy

> OMG! That is sooooooo sad! I hope it's not true. That man had so

many

> emotional problems and was starving for attention and affection

and God knows what

> else. This breaks my heart for him and his daughter. I hope he

has found some

> peace also.

> God Bless Him,

> Tammy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have no idea why it put an advertisement at the begining...however

please read the body.

[Guest guest]

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to

the different competancies for the grades?

H

From: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>

Date sent: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:54:27 +0100

Subject: Fwd:

Send reply to:

Forwarded at Crystal's request. best wishes

Begin forwarded message:

From: " Crystal Oldman " <Crystal.Oldman@...>

Date: 31 August 2008 16:47:25 BDT

<jean@...>

Cc: " Kate Potter " <Kate.Potter@...>, " "

<.@...>, " Nicola Bate "

<Nicola.Bate@...>, <swilli01@...>,

<sarahcowley183@...>

[Guest guest]

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards).  Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them.  It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.   On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@... wrote:So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Thanks ! I think that was the nub of my confusion. I tried out

the NMC perspective of the 2 professions being essentially the same.

The combined DN/SN/CPN/HV training programmes must hit the same

problems from time to time.

I don't know how the NMC manage to believe it. It makes my brain

ache worse than philosophy of religion.

But it is very encouraging to know that there are still return to

practice courses flourishing. Having been an Open University student

and a commissioner of postbasic education, I don't find those course

fees at all high. Provided that the material is fit for purpose, it

sounds like a bargain to me!

H

From: Cowley <sarahcowley183@...>

Date sent: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:23:59 +0100

Subject: Re: Forwarded message

Send reply to:

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though

there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being

longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies

designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards).Going back

to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who

presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not

able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are

only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@... wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to

the different competancies for the grades?

[Guest guest]

Can I throw into this pot, the scenario of a health visitor wanting to work as a school nurse and adding to her qualification by a portfolio route plus 10 weeks of practice and possibly also undertaking the SN module not the whole year course. How does SENATE feel about this? We have asked NMC but are awaiting reply as they have not yet given an answer. I look forward to reading your replies.

Barbara

Re: Forwarded message

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi

The basic skills should be transferable as they are both SCPHN - the only need in my book is to ensure the knowledge base is there. So doing the SN module of a SCPHN course may be right. And also a question - do they need to be identified as SN - in the old days and HV qualification covered both and we must also remember that it is the professionals responsibility through the Code to ensure they have the knowledge and skills.

But the bigger issue I think is that we would be very unhappy if a SN undertook HV work which is what they thought they could do in Cambridge - I have had this suggested to me but always make it clear that there are specific skills needed to work with babies and young childrne and with adolescents and this needs to be recognised.

It becomes clearer and clearer that this is an issue that needs addressing

Margaret

Re: Forwarded message

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Dear BarbaraWe have had both HV and SN students doing this. They don,t complete the full BSc programme again, just the relevant specialist modules.Sent from my iPodOn 1 Sep 2008, at 17:09, "Barbara -Todd" <barbara.rt@...> wrote:

Can I throw into this pot, the scenario of a health visitor wanting to work as a school nurse and adding to her qualification by a portfolio route plus 10 weeks of practice and possibly also undertaking the SN module not the whole year course. How does SENATE feel about this? We have asked NMC but are awaiting reply as they have not yet given an answer. I look forward to reading your replies.

Barbara

Re: Forwarded message

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi I have been following the emails re HV and SN courses. With interest.At Booktrust packs that are available for babies 6-9. Months and for two. Years. Bookstart packs. are given out by 149 PCTs and last year we received 9e %. This year we are wanting to strengthen the message given by health professional - only a thought but would not include something in the relevant. courses for health visiting. Let me know what you think and how this could be incorporated. If anyone is not familiar with the Bookstart programme please let me know and I can send some sample packs. Best wishes Elaine Bielby Booktrust National Manager for health partnershipsElaine Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless deviceFrom: BT Internet <kwhittaker1@...>Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:02:15 +0100< >Subject: Re: Forwarded message Dear BarbaraWe have had both HV and SN students doing this. They don,t complete the full BSc programme again, just the relevant specialist modules.Sent from my iPodOn 1 Sep 2008, at 17:09, "Barbara -Todd" <barbara.rtvirgin (DOT) net> wrote: Can I throw into this pot, the scenario of a health visitor wanting to work as a school nurse and adding to her qualification by a portfolio route plus 10 weeks of practice and possibly also undertaking the SN module not the whole year course. How does SENATE feel about this? We have asked NMC but are awaiting reply as they have not yet given an answer. I look forward to reading your replies.Barbara Re: Forwarded message , stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN. On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk wrote: So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H sarahcowley183btinternet http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi All

I have not followed all of the string of emails but thought it might be helpful to add some context here. The reason the portfolio route for SN was introduced was because in scotland HV's and SN's at the time were collectively known as Public health nurses ( not sure what the current position is?) and so their requirements were that the training enabled them to work in both areas. In the training in scotland practice was divided firmly between health visiting and school nursing and it was up to the employer and registrant to determine their area of work on completion of a SCPHN training. This clearly caused difficulties, for you could not have a position that registrants in the other three devolved administrations could not work across the two areas but you could in scotland. At the same time the other three areas had no desire to train to be both. It was therefore the best compromise for Council were not happy just to say you could work in both without demonstrating competence in both areas so the portfolio was intended to demonstrate differing theoretical knowledge and the practice was signed off by a relevant CPT. Without this the NMC would have been criticised by registrants for discriminating against those nurses who wanted to work in school nursing but lived in the other three devolved administrations. It was a no win situation.

I hope that helps to clarify in some way.

Decisions are not made necessarily in linear fashion but because there are the needs of four increasingly diverse countries requiring different outcomes but with the same overall qualification compromise the position. I have grave concerns as the countries increasingly diversify without due respect to the profession. I am sorry i am not able to make the UKPHA Sig because there is a real need for a united front for I fear this will only get worse before it gets betterLiz

========================================Message Received: Sep 01 2008, 06:05 PMFrom: "Margaret Buttigieg" Cc: Subject: Re: Forwarded message

Hi

The basic skills should be transferable as they are both SCPHN - the only need in my book is to ensure the knowledge base is there. So doing the SN module of a SCPHN course may be right. And also a question - do they need to be identified as SN - in the old days and HV qualification covered both and we must also remember that it is the professionals responsibility through the Code to ensure they have the knowledge and skills.

But the bigger issue I think is that we would be very unhappy if a SN undertook HV work which is what they thought they could do in Cambridge - I have had this suggested to me but always make it clear that there are specific skills needed to work with babies and young childrne and with adolescents and this needs to be recognised.

It becomes clearer and clearer that this is an issue that needs addressing

Margaret

Re: Forwarded message

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Enter your signature

Liz Plastow

Tel 07792363387

[Guest guest]

Hi Liz

Thanks for the clarification – there was

an interesting article in last weeks HSJ about the devolution agenda and how

things were different in each of the four countries.

And to day there was the car parking

issues!

Interesting

Margaret

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Liz Plastow

Sent: 02 September 2008 13:21

Subject: Re:

Forwarded message

Hi All

I

have not followed all of the string of emails but thought it might be helpful

to add some context here. The reason the portfolio route for SN was introduced

was because in scotland

HV's and SN's at the time were collectively known as Public health nurses ( not

sure what the current position is?) and so their requirements were that

the training enabled them to work in both areas. In the training in scotland

practice was divided firmly between health visiting and school nursing and it

was up to the employer and registrant to determine their area of work on

completion of a SCPHN training. This clearly caused difficulties, for you

could not have a position that registrants in the other three devolved

administrations could not work across the two areas but you could in scotland. At

the same time the other three areas had no desire to train to be both. It

was therefore the best compromise for Council were not happy just to say you

could work in both without demonstrating competence in both areas so the

portfolio was intended to demonstrate differing theoretical knowledge and the

practice was signed off by a relevant CPT. Without this the NMC would have been

criticised by registrants for discriminating against those nurses who wanted to

work in school nursing but lived in the other three devolved administrations.

It was a no win situation.

I hope

that helps to clarify in some way.

Decisions

are not made necessarily in linear fashion but because there are the

needs of four increasingly diverse countries requiring different outcomes

but with the same overall qualification compromise the position. I have grave

concerns as the countries increasingly diversify without due respect

to the profession.

I am sorry i am not able to make the UKPHA Sig because there is a real need for

a united front for I fear this will only get worse before it gets better

Liz

========================================

Message Received: Sep 01 2008, 06:05 PM

From: " Margaret Buttigieg "

Cc:

Subject: Re: Forwarded message

Hi

The basic skills should be transferable as they are both

SCPHN - the only need in my book is to ensure the knowledge base is there.

So doing the SN module of a SCPHN course may be right. And also a

question - do they need to be identified as SN - in the old days and HV

qualification covered both and we must also remember that it is the

professionals responsibility through the Code to ensure they have the knowledge

and skills.

But the bigger issue I think is that we would be very

unhappy if a SN undertook HV work which is what they thought they could do in

Cambridge - I have had this suggested to me but always make it clear that there

are specific skills needed to work with babies and young childrne and with

adolescents and this needs to be recognised.

It becomes clearer and clearer that this is an issue that

needs addressing

Margaret

Re:

Forwarded message

,

stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two

completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both

expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie,

SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying,

again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different

programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once

more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include

SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk

wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just

to

the different competancies for the grades?

H

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Enter

your signature

Liz

Plastow

Tel

07792363387

[Guest guest]

Thanks for raising this Barbara, and all the responses.  As 's response shows, such top up programmes are already available and have been since the register was set up  (and in the earlier SPQ programme, at least in theory).  Again, it is a shame the NMC don't seem able to respond adequately.  Have you (or whoever was interested) tried contacting your local university?  As Margaret says, prior to 1995, health visitors were all formally trained to be school nurses as well, although the extent of training in the programmes did not really keep up with what was needed just because the programmes were too short, and the knowledge base has expanded dramatically over the last 20-30 years.  I would be in favour of a basic qualification that encompassed all ages again, but not in a 45 week post-reg programme.  The basic knowledge is the same (understanding public health, health promotion, epidemiology, communication/relationship skills, community and family knowledge, nutrition, child development etc, etc) but there is just not enough time to encompass the specific knowledge required for all ages in such a short programme.  That is the problem with having it as a post-registration qualification, when so little of the pre-reg nursing programme is actually relevant.  On paper, it takes 4 years to train as either a health visitor or a school nurse, but in practice most of the first 3 years (pre-registration) is about other things.  If only we had 4 years ( or even 3 years) to concentrate on what is needed in practice, it would be perfectly possible to develop a programme that would encompass all ages.  Back to banging my usual drum about needing to change the whole basis of the training:  open the entry gates, improve recruitment, equity for everyone in the team, a better level of education and the potential to develop a skillmix team in which all members had at least some of the relevant knowledge, instead of jobs for nurses for the sake of nursing.  best wishesOn 1 Sep 2008, at 17:09, Barbara -Todd wrote:Can I throw into this pot, the scenario of a health visitor wanting to work as a school nurse and adding to her qualification by a portfolio route plus 10 weeks of practice and possibly also undertaking the SN module not the whole year course. How does SENATE feel about this? We have asked NMC but are awaiting reply as they have not yet given an answer. I look forward to reading your replies.Barbara ----- Original Message ----- sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Could you sens details of your course/portfolio please? Our local educational institution is having problems trying to get any info from NMC so I am basing it on the previous requirements.

Re: Forwarded message

, stepping in here ahead of Crystal, it sounded as though there are two completely different courses, with the SCPHN being longer, also reflecting both expectations of grade and competencies designed for qualification as SCPHN (ie, SCPHN standards). Going back to Jean's original posting, it is worrying, again, that the NMC, who presumably validated two completely different programmes, were not able to distinguish between them. It shows, once more, that they are only to think along a single track, which does not include SCPHN.

On 31 Aug 2008, at 20:25, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

So the differences in the course learning objectives relate just to the different competancies for the grades?H

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn