RE: Re: 'New Nursing and Midwifery Council'

October 22, 2000

Thanks Woody - you are right; these are two points of great concern that

would be well pointed out as part of the response to Question 17.

Any other comments? The response needs to be received by the end of

October, so this is the last week to send them in!

Best wishes

woody@... wrote:

> Dear ,

>

> Could I make two small but important suggestions ?

>

> A. para21 & q17: as well as a duty of service/competent responsiblity

> to patients and clients, both Health Visitors and School Nurses can

> have a duty of service to a defined population (e.g. within a PCG or

> school) or a defined community (e.g. gypsy travellers using the M11

> or Kosovar refugees in Barking). Public health responsiblities are

> never mentioned within the consultation document.

>

> This also helps ensure that the 'right' sort of Health Visitor is

> eventually on the Council. RCN care sadly little about public health,

> although my 'brothers' at Unison are a bit more enlightened, but

> electing from among professionals with an explicit public health

> element to their contract/job description will bring in the sort of

> practitioner with whom I suspect many Senate members could identify.

> One-to-one caring roles are also important, and the unique evolution

> of HV & SN practice within the NHS has been to combine skills in both

> spheres: this can hold true whether the HV works mainly with children

> or the elderly and whether the SN works in a mainstream or a special

> school.

>

> B. Nowhere in the consultation is knowledge-based practice included

> among the professional/educational standards. I would suggest a key

> element of academic HV/SN practice is to develop and apply the

> knowledge base for professional practice, and a key CPD requirement

> for community practice is to keep up-to-date with current knowledge.

> I am not at all suggesting the narrow Oxford approach to

> 'evidence-based medicine' but rather a fundamental responsiblity for

> all caring professionals to seek the widest and deepest understanding

> of their own work and their own clientele and to remain open to

> improving their practice throughout their career of public service.

>

> I hope that is a useful contribution, , from the HV/SN

> " supporters' club " !

>

> Woody.

>

> > A reminder that the consultation document about the 'New Nursing and

> > Midwifery Council' (available on

> > http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/nmcconsult.pdf) is due in at the end of

> > October. I was asked to do a response at work so I have built on

> that

> > basis to address some of my specific concerns about health visitor

> > regulation in future. Shall we send a response from SENATE?

> >

> > I attach a still-incomplete draft. There are quite a few

> questions in

> > which I could do with some help, either because I did not have any

> ideas

> > or do not know enough details to respond. If anyone disagrees with

> any

> > aspects, or can suggest alternatives/additions, please let me know.

> > Also, people can use this as a template for discussion in their own

> > workplace and send in their own responses, either as individuals or

> as

> > groups of practitioners (eg, from a clinic base or particular team).

> > In consultation exercises like this, the total number of responses

> > saying a particular thing is counted, so it is better to send a

> number

> > than a single 'composite' response.

> >

> > Comments/questions on the whole thing, please, but especially these

> > points:

> >

> > Question 7 asks: How can the aim of facilitating the new ways of

> working

> > described in paragraph 20 best be secured?

> >

> > Para 20 sets out `Four fundamental functions' that cannot

> be transferred

> > by Order to another body

> >

> > a) keeping the register of memebrs admitted to practice

> > determining standards of education and training for admission to

> > practice

> > c) giving guidance about standards of conduct and performance

> > d) adminstering procedures (including making rules) relating to

> > misconduct, unfitness to practice and similar matters

> >

> > Para 21 sets out an `explicit and overarching duty on the

> Council to:

> > a. Treat the health and welfare of patients and clients as paramount

> > b. Work in partnership with employers, educators and other

> regualtory

> > bodies

> > c. Consult any groups with an interest in proposals to vary policy,

> > standards and rules

> > d. Have regard to differing considerations affecting the different

> > professions and and spcialised groups within them

> > e. Have regard to the interests in each UK country

> >

> > `Views are welcome on how the regulatory framework can best

> support

> > these aims in practice'

> >

> > Any suggestions?

> >

> > Questions 12

> >

> > Any other suggestions?

> >

> > Question 13 does anyone know how the replacement arrangements for

> the

> > National Boards and their validating functions will be achieved?

> >

> > Question 16

> >

> > Any other suggestions?

> >

> > Question 17

> > My response to this question seems seems particularly weak, as only

> > Unison explicitly recognises health visiting as a distinct

> profession.

> > The RCN actively oppose the idea of a separate register and

> profession;

> > the CPHVA want to retain the register only until there is a general

> > register encompassing all community nurses, and they do not think

> health

> > visiting is a profession in its own right. So, presumably, if the

> RCN

> > or CPHVA are asked who should represent health visiting, they will

> put

> > forward people who want it regulated as a specialist part of

> nursing.

> >

> > What do we advise the government to do about this, without looking

> as if

> > the profession is hopelessly divided (as some might think it is!!)?

> >

> > Question 19

> >

> > I ran out of steam here: further suggestions and comments?

>

October 23, 2000

Just a few thoughts on the New Nursing and Midwifery Council

Q1 'Do you think any specific measures are necessary to ensure effective

communication..'

How you communicate and who you communicate with are always crucial to any

enterprise. I believe that specific communication measures should be stated

clearly including lines of responsibility regarding communication.

Q3 'What steps do you think are needed to ensure that the distinctive

contributuion of each profession is properly acknowledged?'

It is difficult not to get emotional, now I am going to get emotional

I feel it is an affront not to have Health Visiting recognised within the

title and I say that as someone who is qualified as a nurse, midwife and

health visitor. I believe there is a responsibility to recognise health

visiting because of the extended scope of practice that the registration

allows and the extended knowledge gained in the training process, it isn't

just another branch of nursing!

Q14 'How do you think continuing competence to practice can best be

determined, monitored and maintained?'

Currently there is a gap in monitoring and dealing with competence to

practice at grass roots level, beyond student years. Structures need to be

put in place that are not punitive but are of a mentoring,support and

monitoring nature within a feedback loop designed to support good practice

and prevent poor performance and low standards of care.

Hope these somewhat emotional comments are of some help!

Houston

>From: Cowley <sarah@...>

>Reply-egroups

>egroups

>Subject: Re: Re: 'New Nursing and Midwifery Council'

>Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:38:04 +0100

>

>Thanks Woody - you are right; these are two points of great concern that

>would be well pointed out as part of the response to Question 17.

>

>Any other comments? The response needs to be received by the end of

>October, so this is the last week to send them in!

>

>Best wishes

>

>woody@... wrote:

>

> > Dear ,

> >

> > Could I make two small but important suggestions ?

> >

> > A. para21 & q17: as well as a duty of service/competent responsiblity

> > to patients and clients, both Health Visitors and School Nurses can

> > have a duty of service to a defined population (e.g. within a PCG or

> > school) or a defined community (e.g. gypsy travellers using the M11

> > or Kosovar refugees in Barking). Public health responsiblities are

> > never mentioned within the consultation document.

> >

> > This also helps ensure that the 'right' sort of Health Visitor is

> > eventually on the Council. RCN care sadly little about public health,

> > although my 'brothers' at Unison are a bit more enlightened, but

> > electing from among professionals with an explicit public health

> > element to their contract/job description will bring in the sort of

> > practitioner with whom I suspect many Senate members could identify.

> > One-to-one caring roles are also important, and the unique evolution

> > of HV & SN practice within the NHS has been to combine skills in both

> > spheres: this can hold true whether the HV works mainly with children

> > or the elderly and whether the SN works in a mainstream or a special

> > school.

> >

> > B. Nowhere in the consultation is knowledge-based practice included

> > among the professional/educational standards. I would suggest a key

> > element of academic HV/SN practice is to develop and apply the

> > knowledge base for professional practice, and a key CPD requirement

> > for community practice is to keep up-to-date with current knowledge.

> > I am not at all suggesting the narrow Oxford approach to

> > 'evidence-based medicine' but rather a fundamental responsiblity for

> > all caring professionals to seek the widest and deepest understanding

> > of their own work and their own clientele and to remain open to

> > improving their practice throughout their career of public service.

> >

> > I hope that is a useful contribution, , from the HV/SN

> > " supporters' club " !

> >

> > Woody.

> >

> > > A reminder that the consultation document about the 'New Nursing and

> > > Midwifery Council' (available on

> > > http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/nmcconsult.pdf) is due in at the end of

> > > October. I was asked to do a response at work so I have built on

> > that

> > > basis to address some of my specific concerns about health visitor

> > > regulation in future. Shall we send a response from SENATE?

> > >

> > > I attach a still-incomplete draft. There are quite a few

> > questions in

> > > which I could do with some help, either because I did not have any

> > ideas

> > > or do not know enough details to respond. If anyone disagrees with

> > any

> > > aspects, or can suggest alternatives/additions, please let me know.

> > > Also, people can use this as a template for discussion in their own

> > > workplace and send in their own responses, either as individuals or

> > as

> > > groups of practitioners (eg, from a clinic base or particular team).

> > > In consultation exercises like this, the total number of responses

> > > saying a particular thing is counted, so it is better to send a

> > number

> > > than a single 'composite' response.

> > >

> > > Comments/questions on the whole thing, please, but especially these

> > > points:

> > >

> > > Question 7 asks: How can the aim of facilitating the new ways of

> > working

> > > described in paragraph 20 best be secured?

> > >

> > > Para 20 sets out `Four fundamental functions' that cannot

> > be transferred

> > > by Order to another body

> > >

> > > a) keeping the register of memebrs admitted to practice

> > > determining standards of education and training for admission to

> > > practice

> > > c) giving guidance about standards of conduct and performance

> > > d) adminstering procedures (including making rules) relating to

> > > misconduct, unfitness to practice and similar matters

> > >

> > > Para 21 sets out an `explicit and overarching duty on the

> > Council to:

> > > a. Treat the health and welfare of patients and clients as paramount

> > > b. Work in partnership with employers, educators and other

> > regualtory

> > > bodies

> > > c. Consult any groups with an interest in proposals to vary policy,

> > > standards and rules

> > > d. Have regard to differing considerations affecting the different

> > > professions and and spcialised groups within them

> > > e. Have regard to the interests in each UK country

> > >

> > > `Views are welcome on how the regulatory framework can best

> > support

> > > these aims in practice'

> > >

> > > Any suggestions?

> > >

> > > Questions 12

> > >

> > > Any other suggestions?

> > >

> > > Question 13 does anyone know how the replacement arrangements for

> > the

> > > National Boards and their validating functions will be achieved?

> > >

> > > Question 16

> > >

> > > Any other suggestions?

> > >

> > > Question 17

> > > My response to this question seems seems particularly weak, as only

> > > Unison explicitly recognises health visiting as a distinct

> > profession.

> > > The RCN actively oppose the idea of a separate register and

> > profession;

> > > the CPHVA want to retain the register only until there is a general

> > > register encompassing all community nurses, and they do not think

> > health

> > > visiting is a profession in its own right. So, presumably, if the

> > RCN

> > > or CPHVA are asked who should represent health visiting, they will

> > put

> > > forward people who want it regulated as a specialist part of

> > nursing.

> > >

> > > What do we advise the government to do about this, without looking

> > as if

> > > the profession is hopelessly divided (as some might think it is!!)?

> > >

> > > Question 19

> > >

> > > I ran out of steam here: further suggestions and comments?

> >

October 24, 2000

Thanks .

I feel emotional about health visiting being missed off the title, too. I am

fed up with being expected to apologise for being a health visitor. Perhaps

the policy makers need to know hthat cutting 'health visiting' off the title

is very upsetting to people. What do others think?

Houston wrote:

> Just a few thoughts on the New Nursing and Midwifery Council

> Q1 'Do you think any specific measures are necessary to ensure effective

> communication..'

> How you communicate and who you communicate with are always crucial to any

> enterprise. I believe that specific communication measures should be stated

> clearly including lines of responsibility regarding communication.

> Q3 'What steps do you think are needed to ensure that the distinctive

> contributuion of each profession is properly acknowledged?'

> It is difficult not to get emotional, now I am going to get emotional

> I feel it is an affront not to have Health Visiting recognised within the

> title and I say that as someone who is qualified as a nurse, midwife and

> health visitor. I believe there is a responsibility to recognise health

> visiting because of the extended scope of practice that the registration

> allows and the extended knowledge gained in the training process, it isn't

> just another branch of nursing!

> Q14 'How do you think continuing competence to practice can best be

> determined, monitored and maintained?'

> Currently there is a gap in monitoring and dealing with competence to

> practice at grass roots level, beyond student years. Structures need to be

> put in place that are not punitive but are of a mentoring,support and

> monitoring nature within a feedback loop designed to support good practice

> and prevent poor performance and low standards of care.

>

> Hope these somewhat emotional comments are of some help!

> Houston

>

> >From: Cowley <sarah@...>

> >Reply-egroups

> >egroups

> >Subject: Re: Re: 'New Nursing and Midwifery Council'

> >Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:38:04 +0100

> >

> >Thanks Woody - you are right; these are two points of great concern that

> >would be well pointed out as part of the response to Question 17.

> >

> >Any other comments? The response needs to be received by the end of

> >October, so this is the last week to send them in!

> >

> >Best wishes

> >

> >woody@... wrote:

> >

> > > Dear ,

> > >

> > > Could I make two small but important suggestions ?

> > >

> > > A. para21 & q17: as well as a duty of service/competent responsiblity

> > > to patients and clients, both Health Visitors and School Nurses can

> > > have a duty of service to a defined population (e.g. within a PCG or

> > > school) or a defined community (e.g. gypsy travellers using the M11

> > > or Kosovar refugees in Barking). Public health responsiblities are

> > > never mentioned within the consultation document.

> > >

> > > This also helps ensure that the 'right' sort of Health Visitor is

> > > eventually on the Council. RCN care sadly little about public health,

> > > although my 'brothers' at Unison are a bit more enlightened, but

> > > electing from among professionals with an explicit public health

> > > element to their contract/job description will bring in the sort of

> > > practitioner with whom I suspect many Senate members could identify.

> > > One-to-one caring roles are also important, and the unique evolution

> > > of HV & SN practice within the NHS has been to combine skills in both

> > > spheres: this can hold true whether the HV works mainly with children

> > > or the elderly and whether the SN works in a mainstream or a special

> > > school.

> > >

> > > B. Nowhere in the consultation is knowledge-based practice included

> > > among the professional/educational standards. I would suggest a key

> > > element of academic HV/SN practice is to develop and apply the

> > > knowledge base for professional practice, and a key CPD requirement

> > > for community practice is to keep up-to-date with current knowledge.

> > > I am not at all suggesting the narrow Oxford approach to

> > > 'evidence-based medicine' but rather a fundamental responsiblity for

> > > all caring professionals to seek the widest and deepest understanding

> > > of their own work and their own clientele and to remain open to

> > > improving their practice throughout their career of public service.

> > >

> > > I hope that is a useful contribution, , from the HV/SN

> > > " supporters' club " !

> > >

> > > Woody.

> > >

> > > > A reminder that the consultation document about the 'New Nursing and

> > > > Midwifery Council' (available on

> > > > http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/nmcconsult.pdf) is due in at the end of

> > > > October. I was asked to do a response at work so I have built on

> > > that

> > > > basis to address some of my specific concerns about health visitor

> > > > regulation in future. Shall we send a response from SENATE?

> > > >

> > > > I attach a still-incomplete draft. There are quite a few

> > > questions in

> > > > which I could do with some help, either because I did not have any

> > > ideas

> > > > or do not know enough details to respond. If anyone disagrees with

> > > any

> > > > aspects, or can suggest alternatives/additions, please let me know.

> > > > Also, people can use this as a template for discussion in their own

> > > > workplace and send in their own responses, either as individuals or

> > > as

> > > > groups of practitioners (eg, from a clinic base or particular team).

> > > > In consultation exercises like this, the total number of responses

> > > > saying a particular thing is counted, so it is better to send a

> > > number

> > > > than a single 'composite' response.

> > > >

> > > > Comments/questions on the whole thing, please, but especially these

> > > > points:

> > > >

> > > > Question 7 asks: How can the aim of facilitating the new ways of

> > > working

> > > > described in paragraph 20 best be secured?

> > > >

> > > > Para 20 sets out `Four fundamental functions' that cannot

> > > be transferred

> > > > by Order to another body

> > > >

> > > > a) keeping the register of memebrs admitted to practice

> > > > determining standards of education and training for admission to

> > > > practice

> > > > c) giving guidance about standards of conduct and performance

> > > > d) adminstering procedures (including making rules) relating to

> > > > misconduct, unfitness to practice and similar matters

> > > >

> > > > Para 21 sets out an `explicit and overarching duty on the

> > > Council to:

> > > > a. Treat the health and welfare of patients and clients as paramount

> > > > b. Work in partnership with employers, educators and other

> > > regualtory

> > > > bodies

> > > > c. Consult any groups with an interest in proposals to vary policy,

> > > > standards and rules

> > > > d. Have regard to differing considerations affecting the different

> > > > professions and and spcialised groups within them

> > > > e. Have regard to the interests in each UK country

> > > >

> > > > `Views are welcome on how the regulatory framework can best

> > > support

> > > > these aims in practice'

> > > >

> > > > Any suggestions?

> > > >

> > > > Questions 12

> > > >

> > > > Any other suggestions?

> > > >

> > > > Question 13 does anyone know how the replacement arrangements for

> > > the

> > > > National Boards and their validating functions will be achieved?

> > > >

> > > > Question 16

> > > >

> > > > Any other suggestions?

> > > >

> > > > Question 17

> > > > My response to this question seems seems particularly weak, as only

> > > > Unison explicitly recognises health visiting as a distinct

> > > profession.

> > > > The RCN actively oppose the idea of a separate register and

> > > profession;

> > > > the CPHVA want to retain the register only until there is a general

> > > > register encompassing all community nurses, and they do not think

> > > health

> > > > visiting is a profession in its own right. So, presumably, if the

> > > RCN

> > > > or CPHVA are asked who should represent health visiting, they will

> > > put

> > > > forward people who want it regulated as a specialist part of

> > > nursing.

> > > >

> > > > What do we advise the government to do about this, without looking

> > > as if

> > > > the profession is hopelessly divided (as some might think it is!!)?

> > > >

> > > > Question 19

> > > >

> > > > I ran out of steam here: further suggestions and comments?

> > >

October 24, 2000

and _ I agree with you both entirely! Health visiting should be

included within the title and this requirement must be clearly laid out in

our response. I am always amazed by the strength of midwives' responses

when midwifery is not referred to specifically in any discussion of nursing

/midwifery issues.Health visitors very rarely pass any comment. We need to

be less diffident and promote the interests (and existence?!) of our

profession. What do others feel?

>Thanks .

>

>I feel emotional about health visiting being missed off the title, too. I am

>fed up with being expected to apologise for being a health visitor. Perhaps

>the policy makers need to know hthat cutting 'health visiting' off the title

>is very upsetting to people. What do others think?

>

> Houston wrote:

>

>> Just a few thoughts on the New Nursing and Midwifery Council

>> Q1 'Do you think any specific measures are necessary to ensure effective

>> communication..'

>> How you communicate and who you communicate with are always crucial to any

>> enterprise. I believe that specific communication measures should be stated

>> clearly including lines of responsibility regarding communication.

>> Q3 'What steps do you think are needed to ensure that the distinctive

>> contributuion of each profession is properly acknowledged?'

>> It is difficult not to get emotional, now I am going to get emotional

>> I feel it is an affront not to have Health Visiting recognised within the

>> title and I say that as someone who is qualified as a nurse, midwife and

>> health visitor. I believe there is a responsibility to recognise health

>> visiting because of the extended scope of practice that the registration

>> allows and the extended knowledge gained in the training process, it isn't

>> just another branch of nursing!

>> Q14 'How do you think continuing competence to practice can best be

>> determined, monitored and maintained?'

>> Currently there is a gap in monitoring and dealing with competence to

>> practice at grass roots level, beyond student years. Structures need to be

>> put in place that are not punitive but are of a mentoring,support and

>> monitoring nature within a feedback loop designed to support good practice

>> and prevent poor performance and low standards of care.

>>

>> Hope these somewhat emotional comments are of some help!

>> Houston

>>

>> >From: Cowley <sarah@...>

>> >Reply-egroups

>> >egroups

>> >Subject: Re: Re: 'New Nursing and Midwifery Council'

>> >Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:38:04 +0100

>> >

>> >Thanks Woody - you are right; these are two points of great concern that

>> >would be well pointed out as part of the response to Question 17.

>> >

>> >Any other comments? The response needs to be received by the end of

>> >October, so this is the last week to send them in!

>> >

>> >Best wishes

>> >

>> >woody@... wrote:

>> >

>> > > Dear ,

>> > >

>> > > Could I make two small but important suggestions ?

>> > >

>> > > A. para21 & q17: as well as a duty of service/competent responsiblity

>> > > to patients and clients, both Health Visitors and School Nurses can

>> > > have a duty of service to a defined population (e.g. within a PCG or

>> > > school) or a defined community (e.g. gypsy travellers using the M11

>> > > or Kosovar refugees in Barking). Public health responsiblities are

>> > > never mentioned within the consultation document.

>> > >

>> > > This also helps ensure that the 'right' sort of Health Visitor is

>> > > eventually on the Council. RCN care sadly little about public health,

>> > > although my 'brothers' at Unison are a bit more enlightened, but

>> > > electing from among professionals with an explicit public health

>> > > element to their contract/job description will bring in the sort of

>> > > practitioner with whom I suspect many Senate members could identify.

>> > > One-to-one caring roles are also important, and the unique evolution

>> > > of HV & SN practice within the NHS has been to combine skills in both

>> > > spheres: this can hold true whether the HV works mainly with children

>> > > or the elderly and whether the SN works in a mainstream or a special

>> > > school.

>> > >

>> > > B. Nowhere in the consultation is knowledge-based practice included

>> > > among the professional/educational standards. I would suggest a key

>> > > element of academic HV/SN practice is to develop and apply the

>> > > knowledge base for professional practice, and a key CPD requirement

>> > > for community practice is to keep up-to-date with current knowledge.

>> > > I am not at all suggesting the narrow Oxford approach to

>> > > 'evidence-based medicine' but rather a fundamental responsiblity for

>> > > all caring professionals to seek the widest and deepest understanding

>> > > of their own work and their own clientele and to remain open to

>> > > improving their practice throughout their career of public service.

>> > >

>> > > I hope that is a useful contribution, , from the HV/SN

>> > > " supporters' club " !

>> > >

>> > > Woody.

>> > >

>> > > > A reminder that the consultation document about the 'New Nursing and

>> > > > Midwifery Council' (available on

>> > > > http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/nmcconsult.pdf) is due in at the end of

>> > > > October. I was asked to do a response at work so I have built on

>> > > that

>> > > > basis to address some of my specific concerns about health visitor

>> > > > regulation in future. Shall we send a response from SENATE?

>> > > >

>> > > > I attach a still-incomplete draft. There are quite a few

>> > > questions in

>> > > > which I could do with some help, either because I did not have any

>> > > ideas

>> > > > or do not know enough details to respond. If anyone disagrees with

>> > > any

>> > > > aspects, or can suggest alternatives/additions, please let me know.

>> > > > Also, people can use this as a template for discussion in their own

>> > > > workplace and send in their own responses, either as individuals or

>> > > as

>> > > > groups of practitioners (eg, from a clinic base or particular team).

>> > > > In consultation exercises like this, the total number of responses

>> > > > saying a particular thing is counted, so it is better to send a

>> > > number

>> > > > than a single 'composite' response.

>> > > >

>> > > > Comments/questions on the whole thing, please, but especially these

>> > > > points:

>> > > >

>> > > > Question 7 asks: How can the aim of facilitating the new ways of

>> > > working

>> > > > described in paragraph 20 best be secured?

>> > > >

>> > > > Para 20 sets out `Four fundamental functions' that cannot

>> > > be transferred

>> > > > by Order to another body

>> > > >

>> > > > a) keeping the register of memebrs admitted to practice

>> > > > determining standards of education and training for admission to

>> > > > practice

>> > > > c) giving guidance about standards of conduct and performance

>> > > > d) adminstering procedures (including making rules) relating to

>> > > > misconduct, unfitness to practice and similar matters

>> > > >

>> > > > Para 21 sets out an `explicit and overarching duty on the

>> > > Council to:

>> > > > a. Treat the health and welfare of patients and clients as paramount

>> > > > b. Work in partnership with employers, educators and other

>> > > regualtory

>> > > > bodies

>> > > > c. Consult any groups with an interest in proposals to vary policy,

>> > > > standards and rules

>> > > > d. Have regard to differing considerations affecting the different

>> > > > professions and and spcialised groups within them

>> > > > e. Have regard to the interests in each UK country

>> > > >

>> > > > `Views are welcome on how the regulatory framework can best

>> > > support

>> > > > these aims in practice'

>> > > >

>> > > > Any suggestions?

>> > > >

>> > > > Questions 12

>> > > >

>> > > > Any other suggestions?

>> > > >

>> > > > Question 13 does anyone know how the replacement arrangements for

>> > > the

>> > > > National Boards and their validating functions will be achieved?

>> > > >

>> > > > Question 16

>> > > >

>> > > > Any other suggestions?

>> > > >

>> > > > Question 17

>> > > > My response to this question seems seems particularly weak, as only

>> > > > Unison explicitly recognises health visiting as a distinct

>> > > profession.

>> > > > The RCN actively oppose the idea of a separate register and

>> > > profession;

>> > > > the CPHVA want to retain the register only until there is a general

>> > > > register encompassing all community nurses, and they do not think

>> > > health

>> > > > visiting is a profession in its own right. So, presumably, if the

>> > > RCN

>> > > > or CPHVA are asked who should represent health visiting, they will

>> > > put

>> > > > forward people who want it regulated as a specialist part of

>> > > nursing.

>> > > >

>> > > > What do we advise the government to do about this, without looking

>> > > as if

>> > > > the profession is hopelessly divided (as some might think it is!!)?

>> > > >

>> > > > Question 19

>> > > >

>> > > > I ran out of steam here: further suggestions and comments?

>> > >

October 24, 2000

Dear ,

Thank you for getting emotional. I strongly support your stance that health

visiting should be recognised in the title of the new Council and will be

responding to the consultation exercise accordingly. I am currently working

as HV pathway leader at Homerton College CSHS in Cambridge where health

visitors working for Lifespan NHS trust are entitled 'Child and Family

Nurses', combining HV and SN roles. We are currently training 7 health

visitor students, sponsored by Lifespan and Hinchingbrooke trusts, who are

much needed in a depleted workforce.

n Frost

Re: Re: 'New Nursing and Midwifery Council'