Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 Fran, one of the key differences in the new programme, which is a really key issue, is that it has shifted from being a post-registration programme in which the standards can be 'adapted' to suit the course or area of specialist practice, to a pre-registration one in which the competencies are REQUIREMENTS for the registration and they must be implemented by September 2005. One of the big problems about the currrent CHCN (specialist practitioner) programme was that the option to adapt had led to great variability across the UK. The variations largely depended upon things like local interest and teaching capacity, which is hardly a basis for a professional qualification. That was a key reason for developing the new competencies, and for the NMC allowing universities the choice to teach the new programme as part of the CHCN programme or separately from it. But there is no longer to vary the outcomes students achieve at the end of the programme. Personally, I doubt whether it is possible to achieve the new competencies in 52 weeks, let alone 32. However, I know some colleagues whose programmes were due for validation this year have mapped the new competencies to the continuing CHCN programme, so they clearly think it is possible. Like you, I would be interested to know if any the facilitators/development workers etc on Senate have a role in informing their local workforce confederations about these things and what their experience is? best wishes Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:28:39 -0000 > >fj2@... wrote: > > > >>I am writing to ask whether anyone offers an SP programme that is >>delivered over 32 weeks (plus 3 weeks annual leave)? Can I have >>some advice whether it is possible to meet the standards and >>produce practitioners fit for purpose, practice and award in this time >>- >>Currently the courses in our area are 40 - 45 weeks long and >>include 6 >>weeks study leave at Xmas and Easter. >> >>In the North West we are now going through contract renegotiation - >> a process of consultation has taken place and the tender >>specification is almost ready to be published. The interpretation of >>the >>consultation with practitioners seems (to me) to be skewed and the >>outcome >>is that we are now being asked to produce a SP programme of 32 >>weeks with >>3 weeks annual holiday. Another 10 weeks of funding is available >>for >>capability building for students who need it - >> >>I would be very interested to know from both educationalists and >>practitioners whether they have managed to deliver courses in this >>shorter period - what are the general feelings?? It seems that we >>will be writing new courses and direct entry!!! >> >>Fran >> >>Fran >> >>fj2@... >> >> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 At UWE we are beginning to discuss the development of a new programme and to involve stakeholders and confederation representatives at the onset. Although we would anticipate common aspects with community specialist practice pathways, we would also see many common aspects within public health and initially with nursing modules- such as 'Foundations in health', 'Interprofessional working'. I feel to manage to complete the competencies within 52 weeks is a tall order- just like we have faced for years with the HV pathway and that this is a chance to have the time in the University and practice to more fully address the competencies. One of the aspects that seems undecided is around the financing of the programme?- any thoughts? Hope you are well- many thanks for your continuous work. Glenys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 Someone was asking about sleep. I found these articles and links. 2nd BMJ one has got a number of website links in itself. http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7345/1062?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RES ULTFORMAT= & titleabstract=infant+sleep & searchid=1043507789573_4492 & stored_sea rch= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & fdate=1/1/2002 & tdate=9/30/2002 & resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10 http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7345/1104/a?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & R ESULTFORMAT= & titleabstract=infant+sleep & searchid=1043507789573_4492 & stored_s earch= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & fdate=1/1/2002 & tdate=9/30/2002 & resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10 http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7345/0/a?maxtoshow= & HITS=10 & hits=10 & RESU LTFORMAT= & titleabstract=infant+sleep & searchid=1043507789573_4492 & stored_sear ch= & FIRSTINDEX=0 & fdate=1/1/2002 & tdate=9/30/2002 & resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10 Chris www.primhe.org Fwd: Re: direct entry >Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:28:39 -0000 fj2@... wrote: > >I am writing to ask whether anyone offers an SP programme that is >delivered over 32 weeks (plus 3 weeks annual leave)? Can I have >some advice whether it is possible to meet the standards and >produce practitioners fit for purpose, practice and award in this time >- >Currently the courses in our area are 40 - 45 weeks long and >include 6 >weeks study leave at Xmas and Easter. > >In the North West we are now going through contract renegotiation - > a process of consultation has taken place and the tender >specification is almost ready to be published. The interpretation of >the >consultation with practitioners seems (to me) to be skewed and the >outcome >is that we are now being asked to produce a SP programme of 32 >weeks with >3 weeks annual holiday. Another 10 weeks of funding is available >for >capability building for students who need it - > >I would be very interested to know from both educationalists and >practitioners whether they have managed to deliver courses in this >shorter period - what are the general feelings?? It seems that we >will be writing new courses and direct entry!!! > >Fran > >Fran > >fj2@... -- Cowley Professor of Community Practice Development Public Health and Health Services Research Section Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery King's College, London 3.29b Clerk Maxwell Building 57 Waterloo Road London SE1 8WA tel: 020 7848 3030 fax: 020 7848 3506 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Thanks Frances, and all others who have been responding - we know it doesn't make sense - I don't know where I would start writing a shorter course - we are trying to make representation to our contracting Confederation - but it may be a case of 'do it' or lose the business - which we can't afford to do - we are between a rock and a hard place. I am collating the responses and hope to use them as evidence that 32 weeks is not viable - I know we can seem precious with our courses - but this is sheer madness - all comments gratefully received. It will be very interesting as we move towards writing direct entry courses but at the moment I can see we are losing the quality from our current courses fran Copies to: From: " Frances Appleby " <applebfm@...> Date sent: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:07:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Send reply to: > Dear Fran > I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, > there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. > Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went > considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London > WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they > found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and > needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to > practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which > includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with > the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students > require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 I totally agree with all that's been said, we are in the same predicament, we have put our new curriculum on hold and have had permission to run our existing course for one more year. at present our course runs for 45 weeks, the other pathways want the course to be decreased to 40weeks, which for health visiting is impossible because of the new standards, we would very much like to run HV alone, the issue is funding if we increase to 52 weeks or more. are any institutions who are running or intending to run HV alone and was there any issues around funding a separate course. Lorraine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Dear , Here, in Epsom, we offer a University degree honours in partnership with nescot, and we provide a 51 week programme for specialist practice, including 6 weeks annual leave. This has been what we have agreed with the south west london WDC and Kent Surrey Sussex Confederation. Any course shorter than than this would not be long enough to to enable students to achieve the outcomes of the programme. We work closely with Frances Appleby at Southbank as we tend to co-terminous boundaries. Hope this is useful Vasso Vydelingum Director of Studies Fwd: Re: direct entry >Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:28:39 -0000 fj2@... wrote: > >I am writing to ask whether anyone offers an SP programme that is >delivered over 32 weeks (plus 3 weeks annual leave)? Can I have >some advice whether it is possible to meet the standards and >produce practitioners fit for purpose, practice and award in this time >- >Currently the courses in our area are 40 - 45 weeks long and >include 6 >weeks study leave at Xmas and Easter. > >In the North West we are now going through contract renegotiation - > a process of consultation has taken place and the tender >specification is almost ready to be published. The interpretation of >the >consultation with practitioners seems (to me) to be skewed and the >outcome >is that we are now being asked to produce a SP programme of 32 >weeks with >3 weeks annual holiday. Another 10 weeks of funding is available >for >capability building for students who need it - > >I would be very interested to know from both educationalists and >practitioners whether they have managed to deliver courses in this >shorter period - what are the general feelings?? It seems that we >will be writing new courses and direct entry!!! > >Fran > >Fran > >fj2@... -- Cowley Professor of Community Practice Development Public Health and Health Services Research Section Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery King's College, London 3.29b Clerk Maxwell Building 57 Waterloo Road London SE1 8WA tel: 020 7848 3030 fax: 020 7848 3506 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 If it takes three years to prepare a direct entry midwife, why are we thinking it takes less to prepare a direct entry HV? Remember if we take people who are not nurses we have to include the " midwifery and nursing component " . Also I assume we are thinking about a qualification at not less than degree level - which takes three years June Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 You know, I sometimes am so flippant..but I have to say that the concept of a 'direct entry midwife' has just reduced me to a screaming heap of risible jelly; presumably there are direct exit obstetricians? Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Just as well we can laugh! As a committed generalist (ie generalist training to initial registration followed by post-basic specialisation, as in all other professions) I find the whole concept of direct entry to anything wierd! June Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 I used to be a general practitioner..now whatever happened to them? I told my punters moons ago that it was high-time for skills to meet needs too and that barefoot docs/practitioners had masses to offer most people most of the time and now I see we are to get GP assistants? I would like to see people in a civilised society being skilled for life too, not just trained for jobs..I mean why should so many people have to get so much of what they need to know from the same old fountains any longer. IF we are going to have doctors, and GPs, amongst them, what should be their CORE business now exactly...it seems to have become increasingly what used to be everyone else's business! Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 I thought that one of the points in the consideration of 'direct entry'into health visiting was that the profession - given it's history and present day practice - need not necessarily be classified as a 'post-basic specialisation' of NURSING. There are so many others who have a relevant wealth of learning and experience to bring into health visiting and would become excellent practitioners following an appropriate training. It is my understanding that many of these prospective and hoped for applicants will previously have obtained first degrees and/or other qualifications. This is hardly recruiting a workforce with no previous expertise. Until now they have not been able to apply for health visitor training as they do not have the relatively recent requirement of a nursing qualification. I can only feel that the health visiting service would be enriched by embracing applicants from a wider background. Now that we have the competencies set out by UKCC in March 2002, if these continue to be accepted, there will exist a baseline standard of entry for health visiting, which I think should be used to full advantage. >From: " , June " <j.clark@...> >Reply- > " ' ' " < > >Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: direct entry >Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:24:57 -0000 > >Just as well we can laugh! As a committed generalist (ie generalist >training >to initial registration followed by post-basic specialisation, as in all >other professions) I find the whole concept of direct entry to anything >wierd! >June > > Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter >course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Clarification please. What are 'barefoot docs' and what is 'a civilised society'? >From: " Manning " <chris.manning@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: direct entry >Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:28:50 -0000 > >I used to be a general practitioner..now whatever happened to them? >I told my punters moons ago that it was high-time for skills to meet >needs too and that barefoot docs/practitioners had masses to offer >most people most of the time and now I see we are to get GP assistants? > >I would like to see people in a civilised society being skilled for life >too, not just trained for jobs..I mean why should so many people have >to get so much of what they need to know from the same old fountains any >longer. > >IF we are going to have doctors, and GPs, amongst them, what should be >their CORE business now exactly...it seems to have become increasingly what >used to be everyone else's business! > > Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter >course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Barefoot docs are what they have in China...people skilled to administer 30-40 common interventions for the commonest conditions..actually I think they might even be numbered..bit like the Flying Doctor..Oh yes, Edna it's a bad case of 7..take 3 of b and 4 of y from the medicine cabinet every five hours. Civilised society is either the term used by UK politicians to describe the UK or it is the measure of the degree at ground level that the society attaches to the well-being of its citizens and the processes that generate the optimal states and develop them further. In my field of mental health it is a benchmark measurement of how well the culture treats those with mental illness. Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter >course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Yes, stick to the three years with the possibilities of carefully APLing. How's the jelly now, Chris? < > From: " Manning " <chris.manning@...> Date sent: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:12:41 -0000 Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: direct entry Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] You know, I sometimes am so flippant..but I have to say that the concept of a 'direct entry midwife' has just reduced me to a screaming heap of risible jelly; presumably there are direct exit obstetricians? Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 What's APLing? Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Accreditation of Prior Learning. For example, on our prereg nursing programmes now it is expected that HCAs will be APLd for at least part of the first year (and some programmes have been designed with first year outcomes including NVQ3 so that HCAs can be APLd for all the first year). I think its quite possible that an HCA could be APLd for some of the nursing content of a direct entry programme. < > From: " Manning " <chris.manning@...> Date sent: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:44:24 -0000 Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: direct entry Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] What's APLing? Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Right, thanks for that. Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry Dear Fran I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. As we all know, there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local Universities went considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the SE and SW London WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 week courses as they found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to practice safely and needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This applied to practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week programme which includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we still struggle, with the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of education your students require. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Quite agree June. I have been pressing for a three year degree for those without prior qualifications; some say we should be thinking of four years. I think it is hard to argue against that educationally, but the financial case would be impossible to make. However, I think Fran, Frances and others were commenting about the length of training for those already qualified as a nurse or a midwife. I have to say that I find it hard to see 45, or even 52, weeks as an 'extended course' and think it will be impossible for students to achieve the new competences in that time. As with midwifery, I think health visitor students should have at least 18 months even with prior qualifications, but again, feel sure that the financial case would be very difficult to make, with most confederations fixed in the mindset of 'least is best.' best wishes , June wrote: >If it takes three years to prepare a direct entry midwife, why are we >thinking it takes less to prepare a direct entry HV? Remember if we take >people who are not nurses we have to include the " midwifery and nursing >component " . Also I assume we are thinking about a qualification at not less >than degree level - which takes three years >June > > Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 I understand that very well (although I don't necessarily agree); the point is that those who come in from other backgrounds will need a considerable component in their programme about health and illness, and for them this will be in addition to what current students get in their health visiting programme. By the way, the recency of the nursing requirement is something of a myth - it was there a hundred years ago in Scotland, and was de facto used in England from that time on, although it was not formalised in England until the establishment of the Council for the education and Training of Health Visitors in 1962. I do not know any country in the world where it is not a postbasic nursing qualification although there may be some that I do not know about (Finland did try and had to revert)- and, before you say it, please don't say that health visiting is unique to the UK because it is not! June Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter >course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 We could have a long discussion about the definition of a civilised society, but " barefoot docs " was the name given to the primary care workers used (and I think they may still exist) in China and the former Soviet Union. History, and comparative health care systems is obviously another subject that got dropped when the HV programme was shortened! June Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter >course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 I agree. you know the old saw: If you want to get to xxx I wouldn't start from here. Trouble is this is where we are. I think we should make a virtue out of necessity and say what is good enough for midwifery is good enough for us ie three year direct entry or 18 months post-reg. Of course you know that what I would really like is a four year integrated programme. June Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > >Dear Fran >I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course. >As we all know, >there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. >Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local >Universities went >considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now the >SE and SW London >WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 >week courses as they >found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to >practice safely and >needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This >applied to >practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week >programme which >includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we >still struggle, with >the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of >education your students >require. Good luck! Frances > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Hi Chris thank you for the light entertainment - I was as creased as you at the thought of "direct entry midwives" and the reciprocal obstetricians - great.............Life has to be a laugh ( or we die) Sheelah RE: Fwd: Re: direct entryIf it takes three years to prepare a direct entry midwife, why are wethinking it takes less to prepare a direct entry HV? Remember if we takepeople who are not nurses we have to include the "midwifery and nursingcomponent". Also I assume we are thinking about a qualification at not lessthan degree level - which takes three yearsJune-----Original Message-----From: Frances Appleby [mailto:applebfm@...]Sent: 27 January 2003 11:08 Cc: Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: direct entryDear FranI would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter course.As we all know,there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks.Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other localUniversities wentconsiderably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now theSE and SW LondonWDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52week courses as theyfound many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready topractice safely andneeded to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. Thisapplied topractitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 weekprogramme whichincludes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and westill struggle, withthe HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programmeI think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard ofeducation your studentsrequire. Good luck! Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 Hall, as Head Of Midwifery started a direct entry course about 6 years ago in Brighton. She compared and evaluated direct entrant/nursemidwife practice as part of her thesis,'Wise Women' which received commendation, as I believe acknowledged last year. Why not a 3 year direct entry course with nursing and midwifery components?At least there is evidence that it worked in midwifery. Why not pilot it?Ann. >From: "Sheelah Seeley" >Reply- > >Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: direct entry >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:13:28 -0000 > >Hi >thank you for the light entertainment - I was as creased as you at the >thought of "direct entry midwives" and the reciprocal obstetricians - >great.............Life has to be a laugh ( or we die) >Sheelah > Re: Fwd: Re: direct entry > > > Dear Fran > I would very srongly urge you not even to consider running a shorter >course. > As we all know, > there is FAR too much to fit into even 52 weeks. > Approx 6 years ago we shortened to 45 weeks whilst many other local > Universities went > considerably shorter. The result was that just 2 yrs later what are now >the > SE and SW London > WDCs decided they would only sponsor students to Universities offering 52 > week courses as they > found many students coming off the shorter courses were not ready to > practice safely and > needed to be closely mentored for at least a year following training. This > applied to > practitioners from all dicsciplines. At their request we now run a 52 week > programme which > includes 3 wks annual leave and a final 12 week block of practice-and we > still struggle, with > the HVs at least, to cover all we want to cover in their programme > I think you should resist any such move to compromise the standard of > education your students > require. Good luck! Frances > > > 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.