Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 I have discussed this matter with a number of top CAMHS consultants and none of them have any inkling of all of this...have you done a wide lobbying roundelay letter to all such people.. also school nurses/PCT CEOs/Social services CEOs/Sure Start CEOs. Could you please give me 3 issues that I can discuss when I have meetings with. If those issues could include some of the background (briefly) as to why you feel/think this is being 'done to you', then that would be additionally helpful. NIMHE MH Taskforce MH Tsar GPC/RCGP contacts MH is a crucial part of HVs work (I am talking about health,too, and not just illness). -----Original Message-----From: phine Locke [mailto:josephinelocke@...]Sent: 20 January 2004 08:41J.Field@...; Subject: today's meeting Please apologise to those meeting today re the removal of health visitors from the register. Due to last minute travel difficulties I am not able to attend. I shall be with you in spirit and will action any outcomes I can. phine Locke Reduce spam in your inbox with MSN 8's intelligent junk e-mail filters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Dear many thanks for the meeting on Tusday and many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting it. There were so many people I would have liked to talk to more and I was sorry to leave in a rush but my lift back to Cardiff was waiting. The latter is my husband who has offered to put questions from you or anyone else directly to a colleague on the Health Professions Council. The suggestion is that people look at the information on the website first as many of the questions that come to mind initially are answered there http://www.hpc-uk.org It is the more detailed follow on queries that can be dealt with in a personal enquiry. My own view is that I have always supported direct entry to health visiting and if transferring professional registration from the NMC to the Health Professions Council can do that, this could acheive so much for the profession. I have many thoughts and questions which I will sort into some semblance of order but my overriding feeling is that without an analysis of the impact of such a move in terms of education, employment, career development and, most importantly, what could be acheived in response to government health and social policy, people will just feel bewildered. A position paper could start that off but drawing details together is quite a task. Should there be working group for it? best wishes to all Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 >>> sarah@... 20/01/04 10:42 PM >>> > many thanks for this. You are right; we need to clarify the message that we are sending out. There are two reasons that I have been a bit reticent about this in the last few weeks. One is because we seem to have been lobbying about this issue for so long. In the run-up to passage of the Nursing and Midwifery Order at the end of 2001, we mobilised a huge campaign, writing to all sorts of people, including all MPs and Lords, but we lost the battle. The reason, of course, is that nursing is a more powerful profession than health visiting, so in the interprofessional warfare between the groups, they win. It is a bit like the China/Tibet situation: if you only talk to China, you would soon believe that Tibet has never been an independent country. If you only talk to nurses (and those health visitors who have moved back to nursing, in order to gain promotion) you would soon believe that health visiting has never been a profession in its own right. Ministers only talk to nurses. They think they answered the complaints, by promising that health visitors can be registered as SCOPH nurses and they do not want to hear that their promises are no help to us. And because we have been batting on about health visiting without any success for about four years, I do not think government listens any more. And, I have to say, I am sick to death of complaining about the problems, which just make us sound more and more like a problem group, instead of (as I fervently believe) an occupation that has a huge amount to offer if only we were allowed to develop, instead of being constrained and confined and restricted by all manner of difficulties. So, the second reason for my lack of response when people have said, much as you have " Tell us what the message is and what you want us to do, " is that I think we need to take different tack from just objecting to what happened two years ago, and try to find something more positive to lobby for. I hoped we might get some clarity about that at todays meeting and to some extent, I think we did. There was an amazing response: about 45 people, which is incredible for a business meeting! We had a very wide-ranging discussion about the current position and ageeement that it is 'not working' in all sorts of ways. We cannot recruit properly, because health visiting has been systematically devalued; being removed from the NMC statute sends a very clear message that the government does not want health visitors. Yet so many government documents specifically identify health visitors as key professionals, so we need to get back into statute somehow. We also need to protect the public, by ensuring the health qualification retains a 'kitemark' quality and that anyone on a health visiting register is fit to practice as a health visitor. I believe (for all the reasons above) that it is too late to change the Nursing and Midwifery Order, but we could, instead, ask for register with the Health Professions Council. That was the gist of teh idea that was floating in her brief 'briefing paper' to Margaret Hodge a week or two ago and Margaret Buttigieg was suggesting it a couple of years ago. It would be a rather different tack to trying to adapt and work within the NMC register. It could only happen with government agreement, but it would allow them to have their 'SCOPH Nurses,' which they are very keen to retain and develop, on the NMC. It would get us out of all the dreadful and interminable arguments about whether developing health visiting prevents nurses from doing public health, and about whether health visitors really do have to be nurses because of the view that only nurses know anything about health or illness. It would give us, instead, a more positive focus to think about, like howwe could establish a professional body, a College of Health Visiting or similar, to ensure the qualifications required to register are suited to current practice. That would be essential for establishing and ensuring the standards for such a register. It was clear at today's meeting that there is still a huge lack of information and understanding 'out there' about the fact that the health visiting register will be wound up on 1st April, or what that means for the profession. There was also a huge amount of interest, some excitement and some scepticism about the HPC option, all of which we will need if we are to campaign in this very different direction. However, thinking about this idea does allow us to see the fact that health visiting has been removed from the nursing and midwifery legislation as a liberation. Instead of knocking on the door and offering to accept any number of unsuitable conditions if only they will allow us 'back in', we should be shouting from the rooftops that we are now a profession that is free from all the constraints that have prevented us from developing our education and recruitment in recent years . We are ready for action and open to offers that allow us to re-establish health visiting as a positive force! Links with nursing could still be maintained, but we could open the entry gates to the training beyond the current restricted nurses and midwives only, which would enable us to have a far more multi-disciplinary focus as well as improving our standards and recruitment options. I am sorry that I haven't given you the three points for dissemination. I have promised to try and develop a 'position statement' that will set out the issues and the idea of a register with the HPC as a possible solution to our current problems. One of the things we asked for everyone to do today, was to go away and tell everyone about the fact that the health visiting register is being wound up, so they know what is happening. If everyone told just one immediate colleague, one person in the next door Trust and one former colleague from three or four years ago, we would soon have a lot more people aware of the issues. And I will work on honing things down to those 'three key points' as soon as my energy levels allow! Many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting today's meeting and to everyone who came from far and wide, and contributed so thoughtfully. best wishes > I have discussed this matter with a number of top CAMHS consultants > and none of them > have any inkling of all of this...have you done a wide lobbying > roundelay letter to all such people.. > also school nurses/PCT CEOs/Social services CEOs/Sure Start CEOs. > > Could you please give me 3 issues that I can discuss when I have > meetings with. If those issues > could include some of the background (briefly) as to why you > feel/think this is being 'done to you', then that > would be additionally helpful. > > NIMHE > MH Taskforce > MH Tsar > GPC/RCGP contacts > > MH is a crucial part of HVs work (I am talking about health,too, and > not just illness). > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 What helpful response, . I was just feeling a bit overwhelmed myself, thinking there seems to be so much to do, and the potential for so many false moves, that I was almost paralysed. I was just thinking, too, that a small group could help fill in the blank 'action points' which we were unable to complete on Tuesday, about 'what,' 'how' and 'who?' I must have just caught your thought! A few people did give me their names before they left, to say they would be happy to help in practical ways. Please would anyone prepared to join such a group (and take on tasks coming from it) email directly? Then we might get an action-focused 'brainstorm' together quite quickly, to try and move things forward. best wishes Coles wrote: Dear many thanks for the meeting on Tusday and many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting it. There were so many people I would have liked to talk to more and I was sorry to leave in a rush but my lift back to Cardiff was waiting. The latter is my husband who has offered to put questions from you or anyone else directly to a colleague on the Health Professions Council. The suggestion is that people look at the information on the website first as many of the questions that come to mind initially are answered there http://www.hpc-uk.org It is the more detailed follow on queries that can be dealt with in a personal enquiry. My own view is that I have always supported direct entry to health visiting and if transferring professional registration from the NMC to the Health Professions Council can do that, this could acheive so much for the profession. I have many thoughts and questions which I will sort into some semblance of order but my overriding feeling is that without an analysis of the impact of such a move in terms of education, employment, career development and, most importantly, what could be acheived in response to government health and social policy, people will just feel bewildered. A position paper could start that off but drawing details together is quite a task. Should there be working group for it? best wishes to all Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 sarah@... 20/01/04 10:42 PM >>> many thanks for this. You are right; we need to clarify the message that we are sending out. There are two reasons that I have been a bit reticent about this in the last few weeks. One is because we seem to have been lobbying about this issue for so long. In the run-up to passage of the Nursing and Midwifery Order at the end of 2001, we mobilised a huge campaign, writing to all sorts of people, including all MPs and Lords, but we lost the battle. The reason, of course, is that nursing is a more powerful profession than health visiting, so in the interprofessional warfare between the groups, they win. It is a bit like the China/Tibet situation: if you only talk to China, you would soon believe that Tibet has never been an independent country. If you only talk to nurses (and those health visitors who have moved back to nursing, in order to gain promotion) you would soon believe that health visiting has never been a profession in its own right. Ministers only talk to nurses. They think they answered the complaints, by promising that health visitors can be registered as SCOPH nurses and they do not want to hear that their promises are no help to us. And because we have been batting on about health visiting without any success for about four years, I do not think government listens any more. And, I have to say, I am sick to death of complaining about the problems, which just make us sound more and more like a problem group, instead of (as I fervently believe) an occupation that has a huge amount to offer if only we were allowed to develop, instead of being constrained and confined and restricted by all manner of difficulties. So, the second reason for my lack of response when people have said, much as you have "Tell us what the message is and what you want us to do," is that I think we need to take different tack from just objecting to what happened two years ago, and try to find something more positive to lobby for. I hoped we might get some clarity about that at todays meeting and to some extent, I think we did. There was an amazing response: about 45 people, which is incredible for a business meeting! We had a very wide-ranging discussion about the current position and ageeement that it is 'not working' in all sorts of ways. We cannot recruit properly, because health visiting has been systematically devalued; being removed from the NMC statute sends a very clear message that the government does not want health visitors. Yet so many government documents specifically identify health visitors as key professionals, so we need to get back into statute somehow. We also need to protect the public, by ensuring the health qualification retains a 'kitemark' quality and that anyone on a health visiting register is fit to practice as a health visitor. I believe (for all the reasons above) that it is too late to change the Nursing and Midwifery Order, but we could, instead, ask for register with the Health Professions Council. That was the gist of teh idea that was floating in her brief 'briefing paper' to Margaret Hodge a week or two ago and Margaret Buttigieg was suggesting it a couple of years ago. It would be a rather different tack to trying to adapt and work within the NMC register. It could only happen with government agreement, but it would allow them to have their 'SCOPH Nurses,' which they are very keen to retain and develop, on the NMC. It would get us out of all the dreadful and interminable arguments about whether developing health visiting prevents nurses from doing public health, and about whether health visitors really do have to be nurses because of the view that only nurses know anything about health or illness. It would give us, instead, a more positive focus to think about, like howwe could establish a professional body, a College of Health Visiting or similar, to ensure the qualifications required to register are suited to current practice. That would be essential for establishing and ensuring the standards for such a register. It was clear at today's meeting that there is still a huge lack of information and understanding 'out there' about the fact that the health visiting register will be wound up on 1st April, or what that means for the profession. There was also a huge amount of interest, some excitement and some scepticism about the HPC option, all of which we will need if we are to campaign in this very different direction. However, thinking about this idea does allow us to see the fact that health visiting has been removed from the nursing and midwifery legislation as a liberation. Instead of knocking on the door and offering to accept any number of unsuitable conditions if only they will allow us 'back in', we should be shouting from the rooftops that we are now a profession that is free from all the constraints that have prevented us from developing our education and recruitment in recent years . We are ready for action and open to offers that allow us to re-establish health visiting as a positive force! Links with nursing could still be maintained, but we could open the entry gates to the training beyond the current restricted nurses and midwives only, which would enable us to have a far more multi-disciplinary focus as well as improving our standards and recruitment options. I am sorry that I haven't given you the three points for dissemination. I have promised to try and develop a 'position statement' that will set out the issues and the idea of a register with the HPC as a possible solution to our current problems. One of the things we asked for everyone to do today, was to go away and tell everyone about the fact that the health visiting register is being wound up, so they know what is happening. If everyone told just one immediate colleague, one person in the next door Trust and one former colleague from three or four years ago, we would soon have a lot more people aware of the issues. And I will work on honing things down to those 'three key points' as soon as my energy levels allow! Many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting today's meeting and to everyone who came from far and wide, and contributed so thoughtfully. best wishes I have discussed this matter with a number of top CAMHS consultants and none of them have any inkling of all of this...have you done a wide lobbying roundelay letter to all such people.. also school nurses/PCT CEOs/Social services CEOs/Sure Start CEOs. Could you please give me 3 issues that I can discuss when I have meetings with. If those issues could include some of the background (briefly) as to why you feel/think this is being 'done to you', then that would be additionally helpful. NIMHE MH Taskforce MH Tsar GPC/RCGP contacts MH is a crucial part of HVs work (I am talking about health,too, and not just illness). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 From Lund-Lack Have just attended a mentor update for pre-reg. students. The Community Practice Facilitator made the following observations: 1 students coming to the end of their training are asking far more often to come back to working into the community, really enjoying their HV experience and wondering how quickly they can get into the training 2 Students are asking about direct entry more often The facilitator (has a DN background) was really upbeat about HVs. So it seems that our profile may be improving more than we realise. I'm now fielding enquiries in response to the ad placed locally for the next round of student HVs commencing Sept 2004. Some good calibre people coming forward from differing backgrounds really keen to get on to the course. One had a very positive experience in her child branch HV placement and couldn't wait to apply! If the interest is increasing from Nursing and Midwifery imagine what the potential recruitment could be with direct entry. (This local evidence supports the proposal for HPC registration) HVs to rule the world?! ----- Original Message ----- From: Cowley Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:24 PM Subject: Re: today's meeting What helpful response, . I was just feeling a bit overwhelmed myself, thinking there seems to be so much to do, and the potential for so many false moves, that I was almost paralysed. I was just thinking, too, that a small group could help fill in the blank 'action points' which we were unable to complete on Tuesday, about 'what,' 'how' and 'who?' I must have just caught your thought! A few people did give me their names before they left, to say they would be happy to help in practical ways. Please would anyone prepared to join such a group (and take on tasks coming from it) email directly? Then we might get an action-focused 'brainstorm' together quite quickly, to try and move things forward. best wishes Coles wrote: Dear many thanks for the meeting on Tusday and many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting it. There were so many people I would have liked to talk to more and I was sorry to leave in a rush but my lift back to Cardiff was waiting. The latter is my husband who has offered to put questions from you or anyone else directly to a colleague on the Health Professions Council. The suggestion is that people look at the information on the website first as many of the questions that come to mind initially are answered there http://www.hpc-uk.org It is the more detailed follow on queries that can be dealt with in a personal enquiry. My own view is that I have always supported direct entry to health visiting and if transferring professional registration from the NMC to the Health Professions Council can do that, this could acheive so much for the profession. I have many thoughts and questions which I will sort into some semblance of order but my overriding feeling is that without an analysis of the impact of such a move in terms of education, employment, career development and, most importantly, what could be acheived in response to government health and social policy, people will just feel bewildered. A position paper could start that off but drawing details together is quite a task. Should there be working group for it? best wishes to all Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 sarah@... 20/01/04 10:42 PM >>> many thanks for this. You are right; we need to clarify the message that we are sending out. There are two reasons that I have been a bit reticent about this in the last few weeks. One is because we seem to have been lobbying about this issue for so long. In the run-up to passage of the Nursing and Midwifery Order at the end of 2001, we mobilised a huge campaign, writing to all sorts of people, including all MPs and Lords, but we lost the battle. The reason, of course, is that nursing is a more powerful profession than health visiting, so in the interprofessional warfare between the groups, they win. It is a bit like the China/Tibet situation: if you only talk to China, you would soon believe that Tibet has never been an independent country. If you only talk to nurses (and those health visitors who have moved back to nursing, in order to gain promotion) you would soon believe that health visiting has never been a profession in its own right. Ministers only talk to nurses. They think they answered the complaints, by promising that health visitors can be registered as SCOPH nurses and they do not want to hear that their promises are no help to us. And because we have been batting on about health visiting without any success for about four years, I do not think government listens any more. And, I have to say, I am sick to death of complaining about the problems, which just make us sound more and more like a problem group, instead of (as I fervently believe) an occupation that has a huge amount to offer if only we were allowed to develop, instead of being constrained and confined and restricted by all manner of difficulties. So, the second reason for my lack of response when people have said, much as you have "Tell us what the message is and what you want us to do," is that I think we need to take different tack from just objecting to what happened two years ago, and try to find something more positive to lobby for. I hoped we might get some clarity about that at todays meeting and to some extent, I think we did. There was an amazing response: about 45 people, which is incredible for a business meeting! We had a very wide-ranging discussion about the current position and ageeement that it is 'not working' in all sorts of ways. We cannot recruit properly, because health visiting has been systematically devalued; being removed from the NMC statute sends a very clear message that the government does not want health visitors. Yet so many government documents specifically identify health visitors as key professionals, so we need to get back into statute somehow. We also need to protect the public, by ensuring the health qualification retains a 'kitemark' quality and that anyone on a health visiting register is fit to practice as a health visitor. I believe (for all the reasons above) that it is too late to change the Nursing and Midwifery Order, but we could, instead, ask for register with the Health Professions Council. That was the gist of teh idea that was floating in her brief 'briefing paper' to Margaret Hodge a week or two ago and Margaret Buttigieg was suggesting it a couple of years ago. It would be a rather different tack to trying to adapt and work within the NMC register. It could only happen with government agreement, but it would allow them to have their 'SCOPH Nurses,' which they are very keen to retain and develop, on the NMC. It would get us out of all the dreadful and interminable arguments about whether developing health visiting prevents nurses from doing public health, and about whether health visitors really do have to be nurses because of the view that only nurses know anything about health or illness. It would give us, instead, a more positive focus to think about, like howwe could establish a professional body, a College of Health Visiting or similar, to ensure the qualifications required to register are suited to current practice. That would be essential for establishing and ensuring the standards for such a register. It was clear at today's meeting that there is still a huge lack of information and understanding 'out there' about the fact that the health visiting register will be wound up on 1st April, or what that means for the profession. There was also a huge amount of interest, some excitement and some scepticism about the HPC option, all of which we will need if we are to campaign in this very different direction. However, thinking about this idea does allow us to see the fact that health visiting has been removed from the nursing and midwifery legislation as a liberation. Instead of knocking on the door and offering to accept any number of unsuitable conditions if only they will allow us 'back in', we should be shouting from the rooftops that we are now a profession that is free from all the constraints that have prevented us from developing our education and recruitment in recent years . We are ready for action and open to offers that allow us to re-establish health visiting as a positive force! Links with nursing could still be maintained, but we could open the entry gates to the training beyond the current restricted nurses and midwives only, which would enable us to have a far more multi-disciplinary focus as well as improving our standards and recruitment options. I am sorry that I haven't given you the three points for dissemination. I have promised to try and develop a 'position statement' that will set out the issues and the idea of a register with the HPC as a possible solution to our current problems. One of the things we asked for everyone to do today, was to go away and tell everyone about the fact that the health visiting register is being wound up, so they know what is happening. If everyone told just one immediate colleague, one person in the next door Trust and one former colleague from three or four years ago, we would soon have a lot more people aware of the issues. And I will work on honing things down to those 'three key points' as soon as my energy levels allow! Many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting today's meeting and to everyone who came from far and wide, and contributed so thoughtfully. best wishes I have discussed this matter with a number of top CAMHS consultants and none of them have any inkling of all of this...have you done a wide lobbying roundelay letter to all such people.. also school nurses/PCT CEOs/Social services CEOs/Sure Start CEOs. Could you please give me 3 issues that I can discuss when I have meetings with. If those issues could include some of the background (briefly) as to why you feel/think this is being 'done to you', then that would be additionally helpful. NIMHE MH Taskforce MH Tsar GPC/RCGP contacts MH is a crucial part of HVs work (I am talking about health,too, and not just illness). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 The HV application rate is good in my part of the world too - we have a waiting list every year for our few sponsorships. Our local HEI is Southampton, which may be part of the reason. It seems popular. I was surprised to hear that things are sometimes different on other parts of the UK and that there may be difficulties finding suitable applicants. Which is the more typical experience? . Re: today's meeting What helpful response, . I was just feeling a bit overwhelmed myself, thinking there seems to be so much to do, and the potential for so many false moves, that I was almost paralysed. I was just thinking, too, that a small group could help fill in the blank 'action points' which we were unable to complete on Tuesday, about 'what,' 'how' and 'who?' I must have just caught your thought! A few people did give me their names before they left, to say they would be happy to help in practical ways. Please would anyone prepared to join such a group (and take on tasks coming from it) email directly? Then we might get an action-focused 'brainstorm' together quite quickly, to try and move things forward. best wishes Coles wrote: Dear many thanks for the meeting on Tusday and many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting it. There were so many people I would have liked to talk to more and I was sorry to leave in a rush but my lift back to Cardiff was waiting. The latter is my husband who has offered to put questions from you or anyone else directly to a colleague on the Health Professions Council. The suggestion is that people look at the information on the website first as many of the questions that come to mind initially are answered there http://www.hpc-uk.org It is the more detailed follow on queries that can be dealt with in a personal enquiry. My own view is that I have always supported direct entry to health visiting and if transferring professional registration from the NMC to the Health Professions Council can do that, this could acheive so much for the profession. I have many thoughts and questions which I will sort into some semblance of order but my overriding feeling is that without an analysis of the impact of such a move in terms of education, employment, career development and, most importantly, what could be acheived in response to government health and social policy, people will just feel bewildered. A position paper could start that off but drawing details together is quite a task. Should there be working group for it? best wishes to all Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 sarah@... 20/01/04 10:42 PM >>> many thanks for this. You are right; we need to clarify the message that we are sending out. There are two reasons that I have been a bit reticent about this in the last few weeks. One is because we seem to have been lobbying about this issue for so long. In the run-up to passage of the Nursing and Midwifery Order at the end of 2001, we mobilised a huge campaign, writing to all sorts of people, including all MPs and Lords, but we lost the battle. The reason, of course, is that nursing is a more powerful profession than health visiting, so in the interprofessional warfare between the groups, they win. It is a bit like the China/Tibet situation: if you only talk to China, you would soon believe that Tibet has never been an independent country. If you only talk to nurses (and those health visitors who have moved back to nursing, in order to gain promotion) you would soon believe that health visiting has never been a profession in its own right. Ministers only talk to nurses. They think they answered the complaints, by promising that health visitors can be registered as SCOPH nurses and they do not want to hear that their promises are no help to us. And because we have been batting on about health visiting without any success for about four years, I do not think government listens any more. And, I have to say, I am sick to death of complaining about the problems, which just make us sound more and more like a problem group, instead of (as I fervently believe) an occupation that has a huge amount to offer if only we were allowed to develop, instead of being constrained and confined and restricted by all manner of difficulties. So, the second reason for my lack of response when people have said, much as you have "Tell us what the message is and what you want us to do," is that I think we need to take different tack from just objecting to what happened two years ago, and try to find something more positive to lobby for. I hoped we might get some clarity about that at todays meeting and to some extent, I think we did. There was an amazing response: about 45 people, which is incredible for a business meeting! We had a very wide-ranging discussion about the current position and ageeement that it is 'not working' in all sorts of ways. We cannot recruit properly, because health visiting has been systematically devalued; being removed from the NMC statute sends a very clear message that the government does not want health visitors. Yet so many government documents specifically identify health visitors as key professionals, so we need to get back into statute somehow. We also need to protect the public, by ensuring the health qualification retains a 'kitemark' quality and that anyone on a health visiting register is fit to practice as a health visitor. I believe (for all the reasons above) that it is too late to change the Nursing and Midwifery Order, but we could, instead, ask for register with the Health Professions Council. That was the gist of teh idea that was floating in her brief 'briefing paper' to Margaret Hodge a week or two ago and Margaret Buttigieg was suggesting it a couple of years ago. It would be a rather different tack to trying to adapt and work within the NMC register. It could only happen with government agreement, but it would allow them to have their 'SCOPH Nurses,' which they are very keen to retain and develop, on the NMC. It would get us out of all the dreadful and interminable arguments about whether developing health visiting prevents nurses from doing public health, and about whether health visitors really do have to be nurses because of the view that only nurses know anything about health or illness. It would give us, instead, a more positive focus to think about, like howwe could establish a professional body, a College of Health Visiting or similar, to ensure the qualifications required to register are suited to current practice. That would be essential for establishing and ensuring the standards for such a register. It was clear at today's meeting that there is still a huge lack of information and understanding 'out there' about the fact that the health visiting register will be wound up on 1st April, or what that means for the profession. There was also a huge amount of interest, some excitement and some scepticism about the HPC option, all of which we will need if we are to campaign in this very different direction. However, thinking about this idea does allow us to see the fact that health visiting has been removed from the nursing and midwifery legislation as a liberation. Instead of knocking on the door and offering to accept any number of unsuitable conditions if only they will allow us 'back in', we should be shouting from the rooftops that we are now a profession that is free from all the constraints that have prevented us from developing our education and recruitment in recent years . We are ready for action and open to offers that allow us to re-establish health visiting as a positive force! Links with nursing could still be maintained, but we could open the entry gates to the training beyond the current restricted nurses and midwives only, which would enable us to have a far more multi-disciplinary focus as well as improving our standards and recruitment options. I am sorry that I haven't given you the three points for dissemination. I have promised to try and develop a 'position statement' that will set out the issues and the idea of a register with the HPC as a possible solution to our current problems. One of the things we asked for everyone to do today, was to go away and tell everyone about the fact that the health visiting register is being wound up, so they know what is happening. If everyone told just one immediate colleague, one person in the next door Trust and one former colleague from three or four years ago, we would soon have a lot more people aware of the issues. And I will work on honing things down to those 'three key points' as soon as my energy levels allow! Many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting today's meeting and to everyone who came from far and wide, and contributed so thoughtfully. best wishes I have discussed this matter with a number of top CAMHS consultants and none of them have any inkling of all of this...have you done a wide lobbying roundelay letter to all such people.. also school nurses/PCT CEOs/Social services CEOs/Sure Start CEOs. Could you please give me 3 issues that I can discuss when I have meetings with. If those issues could include some of the background (briefly) as to why you feel/think this is being 'done to you', then that would be additionally helpful. NIMHE MH Taskforce MH Tsar GPC/RCGP contacts MH is a crucial part of HVs work (I am talking about health,too, and not just illness). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 In the North West we are about to start our round of interviews for HV and other CSP students - but for the shortened 32 week programme. We too previously have not had difficulties recruiting to the HV pathway, but we are anticipating a very different year ahead in September and think it will be extremely hard work for all concerned, mentors, students and lecturers. These changes heighten for me a need to support any avenues that support direct entry, then at least we stand a chance of more appropriately addressing the educational needs of the future workforce. The laughable thing is that when our local WDC tried to convince everyone invovled in their consultation exercise that in reality they were still putting up the money for 45 weeks, many PCTs believed them, because they would pay for capability building modules for prospective students to complete either before, during (now that really is a joke) or after the 32 week programme. (Capability modules would be in addition to the 6 modules students need to complete as part of the degree, hence the educational demands are increased). Despite special efforts by the local University Deans the WDC was not to be shifted. Not surprisingly the truth really came out when the contracts requirements were set. In fact the additional money that makes the programme up to 45 weeks is only for 3 years and it will be reduced over that 3 year period. So when they intitially claimed this wasn't an exercise about trying to give less money to community nurse and HV education - they lied! This is just one reason for me why continuing to tie all options for HV education in with the Community Specialist Practitioner programme is a loss leader. For me this is another level of action that is set to damage HV practice for the future. Sorry to rant and rave - . Re: today's meeting What helpful response, . I was just feeling a bit overwhelmed myself, thinking there seems to be so much to do, and the potential for so many false moves, that I was almost paralysed. I was just thinking, too, that a small group could help fill in the blank 'action points' which we were unable to complete on Tuesday, about 'what,' 'how' and 'who?' I must have just caught your thought! A few people did give me their names before they left, to say they would be happy to help in practical ways. Please would anyone prepared to join such a group (and take on tasks coming from it) email directly? Then we might get an action-focused 'brainstorm' together quite quickly, to try and move things forward. best wishes Coles wrote: Dear many thanks for the meeting on Tusday and many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting it. There were so many people I would have liked to talk to more and I was sorry to leave in a rush but my lift back to Cardiff was waiting. The latter is my husband who has offered to put questions from you or anyone else directly to a colleague on the Health Professions Council. The suggestion is that people look at the information on the website first as many of the questions that come to mind initially are answered there http://www.hpc-uk.org It is the more detailed follow on queries that can be dealt with in a personal enquiry. My own view is that I have always supported direct entry to health visiting and if transferring professional registration from the NMC to the Health Professions Council can do that, this could acheive so much for the profession. I have many thoughts and questions which I will sort into some semblance of order but my overriding feeling is that without an analysis of the impact of such a move in terms of education, employment, career development and, most importantly, what could be acheived in response to government health and social policy, people will just feel bewildered. A position paper could start that off but drawing details together is quite a task. Should there be working group for it? best wishes to all Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 sarah@... 20/01/04 10:42 PM >>> many thanks for this. You are right; we need to clarify the message that we are sending out. There are two reasons that I have been a bit reticent about this in the last few weeks. One is because we seem to have been lobbying about this issue for so long. In the run-up to passage of the Nursing and Midwifery Order at the end of 2001, we mobilised a huge campaign, writing to all sorts of people, including all MPs and Lords, but we lost the battle. The reason, of course, is that nursing is a more powerful profession than health visiting, so in the interprofessional warfare between the groups, they win. It is a bit like the China/Tibet situation: if you only talk to China, you would soon believe that Tibet has never been an independent country. If you only talk to nurses (and those health visitors who have moved back to nursing, in order to gain promotion) you would soon believe that health visiting has never been a profession in its own right. Ministers only talk to nurses. They think they answered the complaints, by promising that health visitors can be registered as SCOPH nurses and they do not want to hear that their promises are no help to us. And because we have been batting on about health visiting without any success for about four years, I do not think government listens any more. And, I have to say, I am sick to death of complaining about the problems, which just make us sound more and more like a problem group, instead of (as I fervently believe) an occupation that has a huge amount to offer if only we were allowed to develop, instead of being constrained and confined and restricted by all manner of difficulties. So, the second reason for my lack of response when people have said, much as you have "Tell us what the message is and what you want us to do," is that I think we need to take different tack from just objecting to what happened two years ago, and try to find something more positive to lobby for. I hoped we might get some clarity about that at todays meeting and to some extent, I think we did. There was an amazing response: about 45 people, which is incredible for a business meeting! We had a very wide-ranging discussion about the current position and ageeement that it is 'not working' in all sorts of ways. We cannot recruit properly, because health visiting has been systematically devalued; being removed from the NMC statute sends a very clear message that the government does not want health visitors. Yet so many government documents specifically identify health visitors as key professionals, so we need to get back into statute somehow. We also need to protect the public, by ensuring the health qualification retains a 'kitemark' quality and that anyone on a health visiting register is fit to practice as a health visitor. I believe (for all the reasons above) that it is too late to change the Nursing and Midwifery Order, but we could, instead, ask for register with the Health Professions Council. That was the gist of teh idea that was floating in her brief 'briefing paper' to Margaret Hodge a week or two ago and Margaret Buttigieg was suggesting it a couple of years ago. It would be a rather different tack to trying to adapt and work within the NMC register. It could only happen with government agreement, but it would allow them to have their 'SCOPH Nurses,' which they are very keen to retain and develop, on the NMC. It would get us out of all the dreadful and interminable arguments about whether developing health visiting prevents nurses from doing public health, and about whether health visitors really do have to be nurses because of the view that only nurses know anything about health or illness. It would give us, instead, a more positive focus to think about, like howwe could establish a professional body, a College of Health Visiting or similar, to ensure the qualifications required to register are suited to current practice. That would be essential for establishing and ensuring the standards for such a register. It was clear at today's meeting that there is still a huge lack of information and understanding 'out there' about the fact that the health visiting register will be wound up on 1st April, or what that means for the profession. There was also a huge amount of interest, some excitement and some scepticism about the HPC option, all of which we will need if we are to campaign in this very different direction. However, thinking about this idea does allow us to see the fact that health visiting has been removed from the nursing and midwifery legislation as a liberation. Instead of knocking on the door and offering to accept any number of unsuitable conditions if only they will allow us 'back in', we should be shouting from the rooftops that we are now a profession that is free from all the constraints that have prevented us from developing our education and recruitment in recent years . We are ready for action and open to offers that allow us to re-establish health visiting as a positive force! Links with nursing could still be maintained, but we could open the entry gates to the training beyond the current restricted nurses and midwives only, which would enable us to have a far more multi-disciplinary focus as well as improving our standards and recruitment options. I am sorry that I haven't given you the three points for dissemination. I have promised to try and develop a 'position statement' that will set out the issues and the idea of a register with the HPC as a possible solution to our current problems. One of the things we asked for everyone to do today, was to go away and tell everyone about the fact that the health visiting register is being wound up, so they know what is happening. If everyone told just one immediate colleague, one person in the next door Trust and one former colleague from three or four years ago, we would soon have a lot more people aware of the issues. And I will work on honing things down to those 'three key points' as soon as my energy levels allow! Many thanks to Sally Kendall for hosting today's meeting and to everyone who came from far and wide, and contributed so thoughtfully. best wishes I have discussed this matter with a number of top CAMHS consultants and none of them have any inkling of all of this...have you done a wide lobbying roundelay letter to all such people.. also school nurses/PCT CEOs/Social services CEOs/Sure Start CEOs. Could you please give me 3 issues that I can discuss when I have meetings with. If those issues could include some of the background (briefly) as to why you feel/think this is being 'done to you', then that would be additionally helpful. NIMHE MH Taskforce MH Tsar GPC/RCGP contacts MH is a crucial part of HVs work (I am talking about health,too, and not just illness). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 , UKSC did a survey of their members, who are the colleges/universities that run courses, earlier in the year. I hope I have remembered the figures correctly, but recall that about half of those who responded, which was about half of the total courses UK-wide, replied that they had difficulty recruiting to the calibre they wanted. To put it another way, roughly one in four courses were struggling to recruit. Another difficulty is convincing the workforce confederations to increase the number of commissions, but that was not a specific question in the survey, so could not be quantified. I seem to remember recruitment in Northern Ireland was particularly bouyant, and recall commenting that that is where managers who cannot find qualified staff should aim their golden handshakes. I hope Una will correct me if my impression is wrong! Wood wrote: Message The HV application rate is good in my part of the world too - we have a waiting list every year for our few sponsorships. Our local HEI is Southampton, which may be part of the reason. It seems popular. I was surprised to hear that things are sometimes different on other parts of the UK and that there may be difficulties finding suitable applicants. Which is the more typical experience? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Thanks , that's a very helpful national perspective. I shall appreciate my good fortune and hope it lasts! I agree about the problem with the WDCs - we even had workforce demographic data to support our pressure for more training places and they ignored it. It's especially infuriating for managers trying to deliver services with a greying workforce, many of whom are wearying of the pressures of a big caseload and the worry of trying to shore up other children's services who're failing to cope. HVs here are well accustomed to the thresholds for accessing social work support which always seem to be just out of reach of their clients' needs. Even the best get tired. I do feel anxious about these two pressures. It has produced some very uneasy compromises in practice standards from time to time - these put vulnerable people at risk. If I can say these things from my position where student applications are good and the working conditions are decent, then active national professional leadership is really important. I'm ready to support the creation of a colleage of health visiting - where should we start? -----Original Message-----From: Cowley [mailto:sarah@...] Sent: 22 January 2004 22:59 Subject: Re: today's meeting, UKSC did a survey of their members, who are the colleges/universities that run courses, earlier in the year. I hope I have remembered the figures correctly, but recall that about half of those who responded, which was about half of the total courses UK-wide, replied that they had difficulty recruiting to the calibre they wanted. To put it another way, roughly one in four courses were struggling to recruit. Another difficulty is convincing the workforce confederations to increase the number of commissions, but that was not a specific question in the survey, so could not be quantified. I seem to remember recruitment in Northern Ireland was particularly bouyant, and recall commenting that that is where managers who cannot find qualified staff should aim their golden handshakes. I hope Una will correct me if my impression is wrong! Wood wrote: The HV application rate is good in my part of the world too - we have a waiting list every year for our few sponsorships. Our local HEI is Southampton, which may be part of the reason. It seems popular. I was surprised to hear that things are sometimes different on other parts of the UK and that there may be difficulties finding suitable applicants. Which is the more typical experience? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2011 Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 We had the paperwork meeting today to start 's HBS program. My hubby was there & told the Service Facilitator, that we've tried DT prgrams & that they didn't work for him. That he really backslid when he was there. So we're not going to be going that route. He was going to stay as his PSW, but he's getting his SS & can only work so many hrs a year. We couldn't remember how many, so I'm going to be his PSW....there's a lady who worked with him at the facility & she's wanting more work, so hoping to use her for respite. Also have 3 people a friend of mine uses that are looking for more hrs. We're going to try & get him working with a lady on teaching him music & I'd like to get him into doing horseback riding which he has liked in the past....before his depression. I'll be taking him into the community next school year reading Braille to school grade classes. Hoping this summer to be doing day care centers. Have to get my list made. Have a couple people that I'm inviting to his ISP. I'm finally feeling better about things. Liz 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.