Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Register for public health specialists/nmc

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

,

I wish I had opened your response before replying to . You have

obviously done a huge amout of work already in delineating the parameters of

personal and professional requirements for HV candidates.

Would differing levels of HV training result in differing levels of HV

practitioners? I realise that at the moment we have HVs at Cert, Dip,

Degree and Masters levels - but those with the lower academic qualifications

have been longer in practice and so have experiential learning.

Ruth

Re: Register for public health specialists

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

> >>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

> >>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

> >>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

> >>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

> >>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

> >>>>health workers.

> >>>>

> >>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the

level

> >>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

> >>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

> >>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for

education

> >>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

> >>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

> >>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

> >>>>entry to the public health register.

> >>>>

> >>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

> >>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

> >>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

> >>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

> >>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

> >>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

> >>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

> >>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are

to

> >>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

> >>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for

September

> >>>>2003.

> >>>>

> >>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Bidmead wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

> >>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>Best wishes,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

It would be good to sign an agreed document and would make the document more

powerful. We could do it using a forwarding mechanism.

Ruth

Re: Register for public health specialists/nmc

>

>

> A Senate response to any NMC consultation document would be

> excellent. Perhaps it could be done so that Senate members who so

> choose would be able to e-sign, as supporting signatories, any

> proposed submission.

>

> Best wishes

> Moira

>

>

> -- In @y..., Cowley <sarah@s...> wrote:

> > Thanks Malcolm for your support. The consultation document

> about

> > how the register is to be configured will come out of the NMC afer

> their

> > next meeting (4th July) and ewill be sent out for 'limited

> > consultation'. So, before that date, the NMC members are the

> people to

> > lobby, as they have to make the decision about what goes into the

> > consultation paper. Also, as 's letter to Stuart Skyte points

> out,

> > the minister promised (as recorded in both a ltter to me and

> recorded

> > inhansard) it is up to the health visitor representatives, not the

> > nursing or midwifery ones, to decide what happens to the so-far

> unnamed

> > 'third register:' although it is up to Council as a whole to

> decide

> > whether to have just 2 (nursing + midwifery) or 3 registers.

> >

> > Once the consultation is agreed, the organisations will be

> consulted:

> > so certainly the RCN and CPHVA need to be lobbied. The RCN have a

> > specific policy opposing direct entry or a separate register for

> health

> > visitors and the CPHVA, although they have firmly refused to debate

> the

> > issues, appear to oppose it also. So anyone who is a member of

> those

> > two organisations should make sure their voice is not only heard

> within,

> > but also that it gets to the NMC: local RCN branches or CPHVA

> > centres/interest groups can send responses direct to NMC, for

> example,

> > with a copy to the 'parent organisation.' Should we also do

> a 'Senate

> > response?'

> >

>

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest guest

Hello . Yes, it is both wasteful and dispiriting for those, like

nursery nurses, who have to go off and do a different training to the

one they want if they want to become health visitors It also runs

against all of our professional commitments to working on an even level

with the population we serve: there are countless community workers,

local activists, bi-lingual workers and so on that we welcome into our

teams for their wonderful skills and contributions, but then have to

tell them (just when they reach a peak of interest and enthusiasm!) that

they are not 'fit' to enter health visitor training, because only nurses

can do that. And to cap it all, we have a dire recruitment crisis in

some parts of the country. It makes no sense at all.

Some of us have been campaigning for a change in the statute for about

10 years, but have been fought vigorously by the organisations that are

committed to idea of health visiting as part of the 'family of nursing.'

It is one of the reasons it is so important to retain the health

visiting register (that is, one that is named the health visiting

register!) so that we can look at all the possible options that are

right for our profession ourselves, not just at what is right for

nursing. And, until we had the competencies (that is, what you get when

you qualify, not what you need to start the course), it could have

seriously compromised standards to have opened the entry gates.

But now the competences have been ratified, I think we need to look at

a 'triple entry' scheme: with each of the three programmes interlocking

but allowing different lengths of time for training, different academic

levels but, from all routes, achievement of exactly the same

professional competencies on completion.

* We need a 'professional entry' route, for nurses,midwives and

other health and social care professionals ( Malone and I are

currently working with an absolutely dynamite former occupational

therapist on a parent-led research project, for example). It is

likely that this route would become post-graduate/Masters level

very soon, because so many professionals already have degrees.

* We need a 'direct entry' route for those like your nursery nurse,

, and the others above: that would need to be at a degree

level. We could easily organise access routes for those who don't

have 'traditional' educational entry qualifications: if they can

it do for doctors and nurses, we could do it for health visitors.

* We need, too, a 'graduate entry' route for all those hugely

motivated and enthusiastic young graduates who have just

completed degree in things like 'Early years studies' or 'Health

studies' or social sciences, psychology, community or family

studies. This, too, would need to be at Masters level and might

start to redress the enormous demographic imbalance with so many

health visitors being over 50.

The scope is so much wider than it was in 1962 when the 'powers that be'

decided that nursing should be the only route in to health visiting.

There is a growing interest in this idea, partly because of the

recruitment crisis and the government's 'agenda for change'. I hope

the NMC might have 'direct entry' route as one of the options for

discussion, when they undertake their limited consultation about how to

formulate the register.

I am increasingly optimisitic, because it seems as though everyone is

asking about it at the moment. The workforce confederations (who have

responsibility for training the whole NHS workforce) will be consulted

about how the register should be configured but they are unlikely to

understand the implications of obtaining a direct entry route if it is

not pointed out to them, so please feed them the idea, if you have the

chance.

We can expect both the CPHVA and RCN to oppose it, but there have even

been a few interested noises from surprising directions there lately!

We debated this at length on Senate (last summer) and there were lots

of different views, so please feel free to agree or disagree. Thank you

for asking and apologies to all who have read it before! best wishes

& Gareth wrote:

>, Has anyone yet considered nursery nurses moving directly into Health

>Visiting? surely the competencies need to be sorted but I know some who are

>training as nurses specifically to move into health visiting! What a waste

>of time and money.

>

> Re: Register for public health specialists

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

>>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

>>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

>>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

>>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

>>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

>>>>health workers.

>>>>

>>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the level

>>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

>>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

>>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for education

>>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

>>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

>>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

>>>>entry to the public health register.

>>>>

>>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

>>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

>>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

>>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

>>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

>>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

>>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

>>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are to

>>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

>>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for September

>>>>2003.

>>>>

>>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Bidmead wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

>>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>Best wishes,

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

- no apologies needed. It is always helpful to have such a

comprehensive resume of the position. Thank you.

Sheelah

Re: Register for public health specialists/nmc

Hello . Yes, it is both wasteful and dispiriting for those, like

nursery nurses, who have to go off and do a different training to the

one they want if they want to become health visitors It also runs

against all of our professional commitments to working on an even level

with the population we serve: there are countless community workers,

local activists, bi-lingual workers and so on that we welcome into our

teams for their wonderful skills and contributions, but then have to

tell them (just when they reach a peak of interest and enthusiasm!) that

they are not 'fit' to enter health visitor training, because only nurses

can do that. And to cap it all, we have a dire recruitment crisis in

some parts of the country. It makes no sense at all.

Some of us have been campaigning for a change in the statute for about

10 years, but have been fought vigorously by the organisations that are

committed to idea of health visiting as part of the 'family of nursing.'

It is one of the reasons it is so important to retain the health

visiting register (that is, one that is named the health visiting

register!) so that we can look at all the possible options that are

right for our profession ourselves, not just at what is right for

nursing. And, until we had the competencies (that is, what you get when

you qualify, not what you need to start the course), it could have

seriously compromised standards to have opened the entry gates.

But now the competences have been ratified, I think we need to look at

a 'triple entry' scheme: with each of the three programmes interlocking

but allowing different lengths of time for training, different academic

levels but, from all routes, achievement of exactly the same

professional competencies on completion.

* We need a 'professional entry' route, for nurses,midwives and

other health and social care professionals ( Malone and I are

currently working with an absolutely dynamite former occupational

therapist on a parent-led research project, for example). It is

likely that this route would become post-graduate/Masters level

very soon, because so many professionals already have degrees.

* We need a 'direct entry' route for those like your nursery nurse,

, and the others above: that would need to be at a degree

level. We could easily organise access routes for those who don't

have 'traditional' educational entry qualifications: if they can

it do for doctors and nurses, we could do it for health visitors.

* We need, too, a 'graduate entry' route for all those hugely

motivated and enthusiastic young graduates who have just

completed degree in things like 'Early years studies' or 'Health

studies' or social sciences, psychology, community or family

studies. This, too, would need to be at Masters level and might

start to redress the enormous demographic imbalance with so many

health visitors being over 50.

The scope is so much wider than it was in 1962 when the 'powers that be'

decided that nursing should be the only route in to health visiting.

There is a growing interest in this idea, partly because of the

recruitment crisis and the government's 'agenda for change'. I hope

the NMC might have 'direct entry' route as one of the options for

discussion, when they undertake their limited consultation about how to

formulate the register.

I am increasingly optimisitic, because it seems as though everyone is

asking about it at the moment. The workforce confederations (who have

responsibility for training the whole NHS workforce) will be consulted

about how the register should be configured but they are unlikely to

understand the implications of obtaining a direct entry route if it is

not pointed out to them, so please feed them the idea, if you have the

chance.

We can expect both the CPHVA and RCN to oppose it, but there have even

been a few interested noises from surprising directions there lately!

We debated this at length on Senate (last summer) and there were lots

of different views, so please feel free to agree or disagree. Thank you

for asking and apologies to all who have read it before! best wishes

& Gareth wrote:

>, Has anyone yet considered nursery nurses moving directly into Health

>Visiting? surely the competencies need to be sorted but I know some who are

>training as nurses specifically to move into health visiting! What a waste

>of time and money.

>

> Re: Register for public health specialists

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

>>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

>>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

>>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

>>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

>>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

>>>>health workers.

>>>>

>>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the level

>>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

>>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

>>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for education

>>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

>>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

>>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

>>>>entry to the public health register.

>>>>

>>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

>>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

>>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

>>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

>>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

>>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

>>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

>>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are to

>>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

>>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for September

>>>>2003.

>>>>

>>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Bidmead wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

>>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>Best wishes,

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I agree no apologies are needed at all. I was not yet on board last summer

when SENATE shared these views but I do fully agree with the need for

several entry routes.My own experiance of working with " arts and health "

professionals,school teachers with an interest in health and with people

with a social science degree who want to get into health visiting is just

the same. They all have to be told " no chance " unless you become a nurse

first.

Who can we write to about this. Who could make change happen ? Does SENATE

need an activist sub group to drive this forward ?

Actions speak louder than words.

Malcolm

Re: Register for public health specialists

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

> >>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

> >>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

> >>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

> >>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

> >>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

> >>>>health workers.

> >>>>

> >>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the

level

> >>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

> >>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

> >>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for

education

> >>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

> >>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

> >>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

> >>>>entry to the public health register.

> >>>>

> >>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

> >>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

> >>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

> >>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

> >>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

> >>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

> >>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

> >>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are

to

> >>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

> >>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for

September

> >>>>2003.

> >>>>

> >>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Bidmead wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

> >>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>Best wishes,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Dear Malcolm

I would suggest heavy lobbying of the newly incumbent Mark !!

Count me in.

Chris

Re: Register for public health specialists/nmc

I agree no apologies are needed at all. I was not yet on board last summer

when SENATE shared these views but I do fully agree with the need for

several entry routes.My own experiance of working with " arts and health "

professionals,school teachers with an interest in health and with people

with a social science degree who want to get into health visiting is just

the same. They all have to be told " no chance " unless you become a nurse

first.

Who can we write to about this. Who could make change happen ? Does SENATE

need an activist sub group to drive this forward ?

Actions speak louder than words.

Malcolm

Re: Register for public health specialists

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

> >>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

> >>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

> >>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

> >>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

> >>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

> >>>>health workers.

> >>>>

> >>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the

level

> >>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

> >>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

> >>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for

education

> >>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

> >>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

> >>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

> >>>>entry to the public health register.

> >>>>

> >>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

> >>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

> >>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

> >>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

> >>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

> >>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

> >>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

> >>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are

to

> >>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

> >>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for

September

> >>>>2003.

> >>>>

> >>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Bidmead wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

> >>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>Best wishes,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Thanks Malcolm for your support. The consultation document about

how the register is to be configured will come out of the NMC afer their

next meeting (4th July) and ewill be sent out for 'limited

consultation'. So, before that date, the NMC members are the people to

lobby, as they have to make the decision about what goes into the

consultation paper. Also, as 's letter to Stuart Skyte points out,

the minister promised (as recorded in both a ltter to me and recorded

inhansard) it is up to the health visitor representatives, not the

nursing or midwifery ones, to decide what happens to the so-far unnamed

'third register:' although it is up to Council as a whole to decide

whether to have just 2 (nursing + midwifery) or 3 registers.

Once the consultation is agreed, the organisations will be consulted:

so certainly the RCN and CPHVA need to be lobbied. The RCN have a

specific policy opposing direct entry or a separate register for health

visitors and the CPHVA, although they have firmly refused to debate the

issues, appear to oppose it also. So anyone who is a member of those

two organisations should make sure their voice is not only heard within,

but also that it gets to the NMC: local RCN branches or CPHVA

centres/interest groups can send responses direct to NMC, for example,

with a copy to the 'parent organisation.' Should we also do a 'Senate

response?'

Manning wrote:

>Dear Malcolm

>

>I would suggest heavy lobbying of the newly incumbent Mark !!

>Count me in.

>

>Chris

>

> Re: Register for public health specialists/nmc

>

>

>

>

>

>I agree no apologies are needed at all. I was not yet on board last summer

>when SENATE shared these views but I do fully agree with the need for

>several entry routes.My own experiance of working with " arts and health "

>professionals,school teachers with an interest in health and with people

>with a social science degree who want to get into health visiting is just

>the same. They all have to be told " no chance " unless you become a nurse

>first.

>

>Who can we write to about this. Who could make change happen ? Does SENATE

>need an activist sub group to drive this forward ?

>

>Actions speak louder than words.

>

>Malcolm

>

>

> Re: Register for public health specialists

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

>>>>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

>>>>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

>>>>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

>>>>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

>>>>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

>>>>>>health workers.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the

>>>>>>

>level

>

>>>>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

>>>>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

>>>>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for

>>>>>>

>education

>

>>>>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

>>>>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

>>>>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

>>>>>>entry to the public health register.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

>>>>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

>>>>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

>>>>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

>>>>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

>>>>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

>>>>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

>>>>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are

>>>>>>

>to

>

>>>>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

>>>>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for

>>>>>>

>September

>

>>>>>>2003.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Bidmead wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

>>>>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Best wishes,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

A Senate response to any NMC consultation document would be

excellent. Perhaps it could be done so that Senate members who so

choose would be able to e-sign, as supporting signatories, any

proposed submission.

Best wishes

Moira

-- In @y..., Cowley <sarah@s...> wrote:

> Thanks Malcolm for your support. The consultation document

about

> how the register is to be configured will come out of the NMC afer

their

> next meeting (4th July) and ewill be sent out for 'limited

> consultation'. So, before that date, the NMC members are the

people to

> lobby, as they have to make the decision about what goes into the

> consultation paper. Also, as 's letter to Stuart Skyte points

out,

> the minister promised (as recorded in both a ltter to me and

recorded

> inhansard) it is up to the health visitor representatives, not the

> nursing or midwifery ones, to decide what happens to the so-far

unnamed

> 'third register:' although it is up to Council as a whole to

decide

> whether to have just 2 (nursing + midwifery) or 3 registers.

>

> Once the consultation is agreed, the organisations will be

consulted:

> so certainly the RCN and CPHVA need to be lobbied. The RCN have a

> specific policy opposing direct entry or a separate register for

health

> visitors and the CPHVA, although they have firmly refused to debate

the

> issues, appear to oppose it also. So anyone who is a member of

those

> two organisations should make sure their voice is not only heard

within,

> but also that it gets to the NMC: local RCN branches or CPHVA

> centres/interest groups can send responses direct to NMC, for

example,

> with a copy to the 'parent organisation.' Should we also do

a 'Senate

> response?'

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Does anyone have the list of names of the people on the NMC and their

correct address ?

Likewise the address of Mark at present or would it be best to use the

CPHVA address ?

I thought I would draft a letter to the NMC members and share this with

SENATE before it goes .

Will do the same with the letter to Mark

Malcolm

Re: Register for public health specialists

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important

to

> >>>>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For

those

> >>>>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish

a

> >>>>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

> >>>>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public

health

> >>>>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all

public

> >>>>>>health workers.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the

> >>>>>>

> >level

> >

> >>>>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

> >>>>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the

basis

> >>>>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for

> >>>>>>

> >education

> >

> >>>>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most

of

> >>>>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

> >>>>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

> >>>>>>entry to the public health register.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH

standards,

> >>>>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

> >>>>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

> >>>>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

> >>>>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

> >>>>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

> >>>>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for

health

> >>>>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they

are

> >>>>>>

> >to

> >

> >>>>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

> >>>>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for

> >>>>>>

> >September

> >

> >>>>>>2003.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Bidmead wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

> >>>>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>Best wishes,

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

You are right Ruth: the practice competencies must be equivalent

regardless of the academic level. Many (?most) universities currently

offer courses at both degree and post-graduate level and it seems to

work well. Usually, any practice assessments are the same across the

board, often lectures/modules taught the same across the board but the

written assignments are different. In any qualifying course, the

emphasis must be on whether the student is competent, at the end of the

day, to do the job they are training for: that is a fairly basic

essential, but it has been hard work to move the debate away from what

you need to get into the course, instead of what you need to do the job.

I had an fascinating meeting today with a lecturer visiting from Japan,

who is interested in what we are doing in UK. She left a copy of their

curriculum: preregistration nursing is a 4 year degree, incorporating

midwifery and public health nursing. There have lots of arts and

literature and languages, but not a great deal of practice. It does

not sound as though they have any post-registration qualifications,

which is one reason she is interested in finding out what we do. There

are school nurses in Japan (called school nurses), but they are

initially specialist teachers who then take some nursing modules and

additional education: they have not done the pre-registration nursing

course. I thought it was a fascinating counterpoint to our many

discussions! What do school nurses here think?

Best wishes

Ruth Grant wrote:

>,

>

>I wish I had opened your response before replying to . You have

>obviously done a huge amout of work already in delineating the parameters of

>personal and professional requirements for HV candidates.

>

>Would differing levels of HV training result in differing levels of HV

>practitioners? I realise that at the moment we have HVs at Cert, Dip,

>Degree and Masters levels - but those with the lower academic qualifications

>have been longer in practice and so have experiential learning.

>

>Ruth

> Re: Register for public health specialists

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Thank you . I am not free, but I do think it is important to

>>>>>>try and get a health visiting voice into these discussions. For those

>>>>>>who are not familiar with the developments, the aim is to establish a

>>>>>>multi-disciplinary public health profession, reflected in a register

>>>>>>that will (over the years) ensure that the standards of public health

>>>>>>expertise, currently limited to medics, can be developed by all public

>>>>>>health workers.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Entry to the register will not, as I understand it, equate to the

>>>>>>

>level

>

>>>>>>of 'specialist in public health' but will be the basic qualification

>>>>>>required to get a job, like consultant in public health, as the basis

>>>>>>for developing those skills. Ideally, we should pressing for

>>>>>>

>education

>

>>>>>>for entry to the health visiting register to map across to all/most of

>>>>>>those standards, so that we can work towards a reciprocity: i.e.,

>>>>>>registration as a health visitor would be recognised as suitable for

>>>>>>entry to the public health register.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Standards in the current CHCN framework do not match the PH standards,

>>>>>>but the newly proposed ones are closer. That raises questions for

>>>>>>school nurses, as well as recently qualified HVs. I think (Maureen

>>>>>>might like to comment) that she and did look at the fit when

>>>>>>preparing the new competencies document. Certainly, it does seem

>>>>>>essential for there to be some kind of pathway through from the new

>>>>>>training to the public health register. The new standards for health

>>>>>>visiting have been ratified, but details of exactly how/when they are

>>>>>>

>to

>

>>>>>>be implemented are still awaited: hopefully quite soon, so that

>>>>>>Colleges can get new courses validated and up and running for

>>>>>>

>September

>

>>>>>>2003.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Can anyone attend and feed back for us?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Bidmead wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Members may be interested to attend the above workshop on the

>>>>>>>voluntary specialist public health register that is being proposed.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Best wishes,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...