Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 Ruth I thibk you may find this is coming from Regiobnal level as well. I always challenged this when I was there but the public health docs do not see HV as valuable. Check it out - it may be an area to work on. Aslo there is the same general feeling at Avon health - pushed and supported by Region! Margaret Re: NMC > Dear , > > This political Tippexing of health visitirng is being reflected here in Bath > with the HimP strategy and Childrens Strategy making no mention of HVs! Whe I > challenged this I was told that 'health visitors are in the primary health care > team and not part of public health stratagems'. We are def. between a rock and > a hard place now! > > It is my opinion that a new breed of public health nurse and community > childrens nurse is the new flavour of the times and health visitors (who for > the most part are politically aquiescent) are now seen as weighers and > measurers in the doctors surgery. Most of our skills have been hived off and > given to nursery teachers among many others. > > I would be interested in other people's views as I seem to be in a minority > here in Bath in thinking such thoughts. > > > Houston wrote: > > > This is my letter to the 'Health Visiting' stream on the UKCC site. > > > > I am very worried that the draft legislation for the new Council does not > > include health visiting. I have written to a number of people including my > > MP Nicolas Soames. He forwarded a reply to me from Lord Hunt that said I > > should be 'reassured that the omission of Health Visitor from the name of > > the new Council is no reflection of the importance we attach to the > > increasingly complex role of health visiting and its expansion into public > > health'. Very clearly this omission is a reflection of government disregard > > for health visiting and a failure to offer clear information to the public > > regarding the regulation of the profession.The mailing also included an > > information sheet from the government that said, 'The Government recognises > > the crucial role played by Health visitors in the delivery of health > > improvement'I am at a loss in dealing with such a contradictory position > > presented to me by government and in no way do I feel reassured by the > > current railroading of the profession in a direction that its' members do > > not support. > > The site is: > > http://www.ukcc.org.uk/cms/content/home/ > > for anyone else wishing to add their voice. > > > > Houston > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2001 Report Share Posted September 13, 2001 I think it is more important to get things right. Better a small delay than to worry about perceptions of correct behaviour. The title and mechanics of the Council are not likely to be open for discussion and alteration for a long time to come once settled. Cowley wrote: > Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN and the > CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! > > We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly in the > spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; you are a > very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent information in > this regard. > > Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions to clinic > bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or comments > that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the debate. > > However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions on > behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. What do > other members think? > > Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the official > position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on the > grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they should take > that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing Press and the > grapevine, we know that is happening. > > However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free to > respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of view taken > by any other contributer. > > I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded message so that > it reads > > " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if health visitors > were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, therefore, putting > its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " > > best wishes > > > > " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > > > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > > message: > > > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the CPHVA, > > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that the > > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond 2004. > > > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of recent > > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong safeguards > > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the CPHVA > > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton and a > > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are feeling. > > > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > > offence for anyone else to use that title. > > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only one > > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are not > > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would suggest, > > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It would > > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing > > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > > http://www.msfcphva.org > > > > Harvey > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > Warning: > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > Harvey MA > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > Warning: > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2001 Report Share Posted September 13, 2001 Hear, hear Margaret Margaret Buttigieg wrote: > It would seem that SENNATE is becoming quite an important organisation for > people to share information through and to voice opinions. But what we are > encouraging and want and have benifitted from is the open honest debate that > has taken place and which has allowed a range of opinions to be aired and > shared. > > It therefore seems unfortunate to me that the communication from the CPHVA > appears - and this is my interpretation - to be telling us not to rock the > boat and not to challenge the way the legislation is written and promoted. > I went into the website as suggested and do not feel any more reassured than > I have previously. > > It still feels to me despite all that is being said that the legislation > remains open to interpretation and that what happens now and in the future > will be dependent on who is representing health visiting. Here we need to > ask the question who nominates them. > > I am also concerned that we keep the SENNATE as a place where we can debate > issues as I am truely begining to feel it is the only place health visitors > can do so. No longer does it feel the professional organisation that > represents us is a place where we can have an open honest debate. > > One of the principles of health visiting is to influence policies that > effect health. Surely this is what SENNATe and others are doing by asking > for clarification on the legislation and looking for health visiting to be > retained in the title of the new statutory body. Influencing policy > effecting health is a health visiting skill many HVs practice at a high > level and look what has been achieved. We should be congratulating > ourselves and pushing forward not towing the party line when we have not had > any real opportunity to debate it and are being prevented from doing so by > the refusal to hold a Special General meeting. I cannot see an open forum > where centres have to nominate a representative and where only that > representative will get entry as an open forum surely it is a restricted > one. > > Lets continue to freely debate on the SENNATE and if others want to put an > opinion over then they need to expect to have it challenged. Health > visitors have spent many years being controlled by managers - the info on > the SENNATE shows that is begining to change and I am seeing it in my work - > lets keep it going - that is what helath visitng is about. > > Lets have some more opinions on this issues. > > Margaret > > Re: NMC > > > Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN and > the > > CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! > > > > We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly in > the > > spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; you > are a > > very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent information > in > > this regard. > > > > Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions to > clinic > > bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or > comments > > that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the debate. > > > > However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions on > > behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. What do > > other members think? > > > > Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the official > > position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on the > > grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they should > take > > that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing Press > and the > > grapevine, we know that is happening. > > > > However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free to > > respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of view > taken > > by any other contributer. > > > > I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded message so > that > > it reads > > > > " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if health > visitors > > were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, therefore, > putting > > its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " > > > > > > best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > > > > > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > > > message: > > > > > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > > > > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the > CPHVA, > > > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > > > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > > > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > > > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that > the > > > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond > 2004. > > > > > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of > recent > > > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong > safeguards > > > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the > CPHVA > > > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > > > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton > and a > > > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > > > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are > feeling. > > > > > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > > > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > > > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > > > offence for anyone else to use that title. > > > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > > > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only > one > > > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are > not > > > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would > suggest, > > > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > > > > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > > > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > > > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It > would > > > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the > hearing > > > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > > > > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > > > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > > > http://www.msfcphva.org > > > > > > Harvey > > > Assistant Information Officer > > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ***** > > > > Warning: > > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the > use > > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive > this > > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ***** > > > > > > Harvey MA > > > Assistant Information Officer > > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ***** > > > > Warning: > > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the > use > > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive > this > > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > ***** > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2001 Report Share Posted September 15, 2001 Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN and the CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly in the spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; you are a very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent information in this regard. Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions to clinic bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or comments that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the debate. However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions on behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. What do other members think? Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the official position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on the grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they should take that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing Press and the grapevine, we know that is happening. However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free to respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of view taken by any other contributer. I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded message so that it reads " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " best wishes " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > message: > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the CPHVA, > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that the > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond 2004. > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of recent > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong safeguards > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the CPHVA > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton and a > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are feeling. > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > offence for anyone else to use that title. > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only one > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are not > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would suggest, > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It would > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > http://www.msfcphva.org > > Harvey > Assistant Information Officer > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Warning: > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Harvey MA > Assistant Information Officer > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Warning: > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2001 Report Share Posted September 16, 2001 It would seem that SENNATE is becoming quite an important organisation for people to share information through and to voice opinions. But what we are encouraging and want and have benifitted from is the open honest debate that has taken place and which has allowed a range of opinions to be aired and shared. It therefore seems unfortunate to me that the communication from the CPHVA appears - and this is my interpretation - to be telling us not to rock the boat and not to challenge the way the legislation is written and promoted. I went into the website as suggested and do not feel any more reassured than I have previously. It still feels to me despite all that is being said that the legislation remains open to interpretation and that what happens now and in the future will be dependent on who is representing health visiting. Here we need to ask the question who nominates them. I am also concerned that we keep the SENNATE as a place where we can debate issues as I am truely begining to feel it is the only place health visitors can do so. No longer does it feel the professional organisation that represents us is a place where we can have an open honest debate. One of the principles of health visiting is to influence policies that effect health. Surely this is what SENNATe and others are doing by asking for clarification on the legislation and looking for health visiting to be retained in the title of the new statutory body. Influencing policy effecting health is a health visiting skill many HVs practice at a high level and look what has been achieved. We should be congratulating ourselves and pushing forward not towing the party line when we have not had any real opportunity to debate it and are being prevented from doing so by the refusal to hold a Special General meeting. I cannot see an open forum where centres have to nominate a representative and where only that representative will get entry as an open forum surely it is a restricted one. Lets continue to freely debate on the SENNATE and if others want to put an opinion over then they need to expect to have it challenged. Health visitors have spent many years being controlled by managers - the info on the SENNATE shows that is begining to change and I am seeing it in my work - lets keep it going - that is what helath visitng is about. Lets have some more opinions on this issues. Margaret Re: NMC > Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN and the > CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! > > We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly in the > spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; you are a > very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent information in > this regard. > > Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions to clinic > bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or comments > that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the debate. > > However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions on > behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. What do > other members think? > > Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the official > position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on the > grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they should take > that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing Press and the > grapevine, we know that is happening. > > However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free to > respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of view taken > by any other contributer. > > I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded message so that > it reads > > " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if health visitors > were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, therefore, putting > its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " > > > best wishes > > > > > > > " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > > > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > > message: > > > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the CPHVA, > > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that the > > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond 2004. > > > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of recent > > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong safeguards > > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the CPHVA > > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton and a > > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are feeling. > > > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > > offence for anyone else to use that title. > > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only one > > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are not > > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would suggest, > > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It would > > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing > > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > > http://www.msfcphva.org > > > > Harvey > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > Warning: > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > Harvey MA > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > Warning: > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2001 Report Share Posted September 17, 2001 , thank you for drawing attention to the DOH guide about health visiting and the draft Order. It is encouraging that such aguide has been produced; obviouslythe volume of letters from MPs etc. is such that it was necessary to produce something a bit more sophisticated than responses from lord Hunt that several MPs had produced. The Guide does help to interpret the draft Order, but basically says nothing new. I attach a critique and would be interested in comments. " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > message: > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the CPHVA, > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that the > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond 2004. > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of recent > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong safeguards > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the CPHVA > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton and a > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are feeling. > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > offence for anyone else to use that title. > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only one > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are not > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would suggest, > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It would > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > http://www.msfcphva.org > > Harvey > Assistant Information Officer > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Warning: > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Harvey MA > Assistant Information Officer > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > Warning: > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > **************************************************************************** > ***** > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2002 Report Share Posted April 24, 2002 , An excellent, succinct letter from Liz. Great stuff. Ruth NMC > Liz Meerabeau has asked for this letter, sent to NMC President > Asbridge, to be posted on Senate. Thank you Liz, for expressing so > admirably feelings that many of us share. > > There is a Council meeting next week, at which the consultation document > about the form of the new register will be discussed. Like Liz, I would > have been have encouraged if there was less talk about what alternative > titles might be used to replace the tried-and-tested 'health visiting' > and more about why it needs to change in the first place. I remain > concerned about the loss of the health visiting knowledge base if the > title is changed and about protection of the public because that would > mean it would stop being illegal to call yourself a health visitor if > you do not hold the qualification. > > I really do not want another boring battle about why 'public health' is > not the same as health visiting, any more than 'nursing' is the same as > health visiting; even though nursing and public health are both > important components of the knowledge base and practice. > > > I have recently been in contact again with the NMC health visiting > members to see if they will meet informally with some Senate members in > London and I am waiting for response with a date. it would be good to > have an open dialogue and to understand fully what the issues are from > the council's perspective. Would anyone be interested in attending such > an event? > > best wishes > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 ,was similarly irritated by the purple thing in the post so far felt bit too stunned to act will write though didnt hear twofaced reassurances at conference. Good for you for getting straight back up punching g Houston <annamhouston@...> wrote: Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday campaign the postman comes!!!!I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!!Dear AsbridgeRe: NMC News, NMC Code of conductI note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health visiting and neither does the ‘News’.Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a marvellous bit of trickery!I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health visiting.It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors.Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said ‘anything that consoles is fake’.Yours sincerely_________________________________________________________________Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early retirement after the wedding! I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially 'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for nurses or midwives in their training rules). Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed before the new health visiting standards are implemented. Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote: >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >campaign the postman comes!!!! >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > >Dear Asbridge > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >visiting and neither does the 'News'. >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >marvellous bit of trickery! > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >visiting. > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >fake'. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 I still feel a combination of angry and distraught about it. I copied the letter to all 4 representatives and all 4 shadow representatives for health visiting and sent everything c/o portland place (address in the offending purple booklet. >From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Reply- > >Subject: Re: NMC >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:06:12 +0100 > >Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a >week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood >pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early >retirement after the wedding! > >I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I >returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, >like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially >'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the >continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was >sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the >statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are >doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? >Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the >proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a >promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted >to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be >permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same >way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? > >I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as >the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute >assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the >Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of >another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a >register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and >public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We >need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as >required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument >that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and >restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for >nurses or midwives in their training rules). > >Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are >desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need >revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and >we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We >cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed >before the new health visiting standards are implemented. > >Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes > > > > Houston wrote: > > >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday > >campaign the postman comes!!!! > >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the > >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! >My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > > > > >Dear Asbridge > > > > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > > > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health > >visiting and neither does the 'News'. > >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School > >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. > >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a > >marvellous bit of trickery! > > > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at > >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health >visiting > >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of >health > >visiting. > > > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over > >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It > >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without >intention > >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > > > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is > >fake'. > > > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 I was rather worried yesterday when the NMC visitor for our HV programme re-validation informed me that although the UKCC approved the competencies (and we had prepared the programme to incorporate them) the NMC have to date not adopted them and therefore our approval was based only on the standards from UKCC 2001 Does any one know if the NMC are duty bound to publish them or can they wriggle out?? best wishes jan Re: NMC > >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:06:12 +0100 > > > >Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a > >week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood > >pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early > >retirement after the wedding! > > > >I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I > >returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, > >like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially > >'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the > >continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was > >sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the > >statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are > >doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? > >Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the > >proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a > >promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted > >to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be > >permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same > >way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? > > > >I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as > >the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute > >assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the > >Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of > >another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a > >register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and > >public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We > >need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as > >required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument > >that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and > >restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for > >nurses or midwives in their training rules). > > > >Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are > >desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need > >revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and > >we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We > >cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed > >before the new health visiting standards are implemented. > > > >Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes > > > > > > > > Houston wrote: > > > > >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday > > >campaign the postman comes!!!! > > >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the > > >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! > >My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > > > > > > > >Dear Asbridge > > > > > > > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > > > > > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health > > >visiting and neither does the 'News'. > > >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School > > >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. > > >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a > > >marvellous bit of trickery! > > > > > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at > > >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health > >visiting > > >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of > >health > > >visiting. > > > > > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over > > >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It > > >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without > >intention > > >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > > > > > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is > > >fake'. > > > > > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2002 Report Share Posted May 26, 2002 nne, thank you for this; it is good to know our concerns about being 'disappeared' are getting through! But it would be better still if we could set up a constructive dialogue. Are you or any of your colleagues coming to the study day in Newmarket on 14th June by any chance? Alternatively, I would be happy to host a meeting at King's College (room space permitting) perhaps around the time you are all intending to come to London anyway. best wishes Cowpe M (SoCS) wrote: >Dear All and >Just to let you know that I have been following the debate and I have >forwarded the digest re this to all the HV's on council. There are eight >Health Visitors on council who actively promote health visiting, the >alternates play a full part in councils work and sit on committees and >working groups. You may wish to copy the alternates into future >correspondence they are - Livesey (England) (Wales) >Maureen Jamison (Northern Ireland) Sheena (Scotland) As far as I know >there would not be a problem with us meeting with you to discuss issues and >concerns at some point. > > >nne Cowpe >Senior Lecturer/Team Leader >University of Glamorgan >Glyntaff >Pontypridd >CF37 1DL >Tel 01443 484305 >Fax 01443 483118 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2002 Report Share Posted June 11, 2002 I can see, by the time you sent this message, that you have had sleepless night(s) about this: hardly surprising. I cannot think of anything to add to your brilliant letter. I wonder what the Council members and the President think of the fact that the communications officer decides that, because it is 'a mouthful' to include the term 'health visiting' in the code of conduct, the entire profession should be left in a state of ambiguity and the public kept completely in the dark about who regulates them? I seem to recall that, last year, we were assuredthere would be a widespreaad information campaign to ensure the public did know that the NMC regulated health visiting. Any suggestions from colleagues about how best to carry this forward? Houston wrote: >Dear Colleagues, >Please find as an attachment and also printed below my response to the reply >I received from the NMC regarding the invisibility of health visiting in the >new documentation from the NMC. >Please feel free to circulate to all who helped in the Mayday campaign I am >sure they would be interested in the continuing saga and the ongoing >struggle for recognition of the health visiting profession. As you will note >I have copied to all 8 health visiting 'personnel' as well as Hutton >and of course the President of the NMC. I have also copied to my own MP for >his information, he had no choice but to become involved in the Mayday >campaign last year!(for new arrivals on Senate that was all about 'saving >health visiting') > > > > >Head of Communications >Nursing and Midwifery Council >23 Portland Place >London >W1B 1PZ > > >Research & Development Department >The Link Centre >St 's Hospital >Hornchurch >RM12. 6RS >10.06.02 > > > >Dear Stuart Skyte, > >Re: The failure of the NMC to include health visiting in the New Code of >Conduct or the NMC News > >Thank you for your reply dated 22.05.02. I was most surprised to receive a >response from yourself and not the NMC President to whom I sent the letter. >I would like to draw attention to the fact that I found the tenor of your >response unhelpful. I was seeking clarification and help to understand why >health visiting did not appear in either of these seminal documents. I would >like to comment here on your reply. > >With regard to the NMC, I am most heartened that you think 'all those on its >register are of equal importance and value'. That was precisely my thought >when I first wrote to the President highlighting the serious omission of >health visiting, currently a distinct registrant group, from any of the >pages in the NMC News or more importantly from the Code of Conduct. > >In mentioning the Code of Conduct you say, > >'we took the decision to refer to those on the register as practitioners, >registrants or nurses and midwives' > >Mr. Skyte could you please specify who the 'we' refers to in this context? I >would also like to know was there appropriate consultation, with health >visiting Council members, in respect of this important decision? I am asking >was this a failure to consult health visiting members over the use or not of >the health visiting registrant title in the new NMC printed material or an >over-ruling of one registrant group by another. Again I can plainly see that >health visitors are excluded. > >Health visiting is currently a distinct registrant group. There are 15,000 >health visitors working in the NHS taking responsibility for the health and >welfare of approximately 3 million children, their families and the wider >community. To suggest as you do that > >'referring constantly to the mouthful, 'nurses, midwives and health >visitors' > >as a sole reason for not using the title of a registrant group is shocking. >What is at issue here is not whether something is a 'mouthful'. The previous >code represented, 'equally' the 3 registrant groups in an open and >professional manner that was helpful to the public who need to know and >understand where to go and how to make a complaint about any registered >health professional about whom they have concerns. Post 'Shipman' the health >visiting profession in common with other primary care professionals (1) >wants to add to openness and transparency in current systems not create >difficulties for the general public in their understanding of where to go >with their concerns. > >You go on to say that the previous Code of Conduct was 'riddled' with the >phrase 'nurses midwives and health visitors'. I am saddened that you find >this irksome; again I can only say that it reflects the presence of 3 >important and distinct registrant groups. >Lest you think I am making a fuss over something trivial, let me remind you >of the ministerial position after the NMC Order went through the House of >Lords, > >'professional regulation for health visitors is fully preserved in the >legislation I am confident that providing for enabling, rather than >prescriptive, legislation will allow health visiting greater flexibility to >develop within its key public health role in line with patient and service >needs' (2) > >'the legislation provides for a separate part of the register for Health >visiting and the protection of their professional title. This guarantees >that health visitors can set up and name their own part of the register and >set their own training and practice standards giving health visitors far >more control over this than they do at the present' (2) Minister of State >Rt. Hon. Hutton MP > >This clear unequivocal governmental line provides for health visiting now >and in the future. I require further information and explanation if this >position no longer holds true. It seems to me that what the Minister was >recognising is the fact that health visiting is a profession in its own >right with a distinct body of knowledge that is different from Nursing and >Midwifery and has been gathered over a 140 year history. There has been a >register for health visiting since 1929 and the profession have had >standards of education and training in place to protect the public since >1945. From my own experience as a nurse midwife and health visitor I can >testify to the inherent differences that exist across these three >professions and the distinct and different trainings that I, in common with >many others, undertook to qualify for 3 separate registrations. > > >In reading your first publications it was my great fear that the lead from >the Minister had somehow been disregarded in the scramble to streamline. His >assurance in December 2001 was, > > 'the NMC Order does offer the protection of health visitors registered >status' (3) Minister of State Rt. Hon. Hutton MP > > >There are many things that I feel encouraged about and hope that the >President will help health visitors to achieve, for instance it was stated >very clearly in the Lords debate that the health visitor members can choose >to call their register 'Health Visiting Register' and to call themselves >'Health Visitors' if this was the wish of the registrant group. >I remain encouraged by the Presidents words at the CPHVA conference 2001, >when he spoke in support of the position of health visiting. I am excited at >the prospect of the proposed new health visitor standards widely welcomed >from within the profession. Finally, I believe there is no place for >discriminatory behaviour in the newly founded Nursing and Midwifery Council >and I look forward to receiving an assurance from the President that as you >so rightly suggest equal importance and value is accorded to all >registrants. > >Yours sincerely > > Houston >Research and Equality Development Officer >Sure Start > > > >1.Beecham L, (2000) Milburn sets up inquiry into Shipman case BMJ. Vol >320:401 >2. Senate-HVSN (20.01.02) New Member and NMC >3. Senate-HVSN (05.12. 01) Safeguards for Health visitors in >the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 > > > >cc J Asbridge > B Webster >F >I White >M Cowpe >H Livesey >M Jamison >S >A >J Hutton >N Soames > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 Wholly agree . I heard yesterday that Hanratty (NMC vice-president) announced at a conference that the 'new community register ' (i.e. the one they will put in, in place of the current health visiting one) will be for primary care nurse practitioners. This is a 'Chinese whispers' message so I don't know how accurate: apparently, when challenged she agreed that position had not yet been finalised. However, the silence does kind of suggest that everyone is happy with that direction. Houston wrote: >Dear Colleagues >It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many >responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of >health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my >first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's >return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying well >done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for other >people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as a >body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me. >So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as a >measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I am >just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know >how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many folk >printed off stuff for colleagues. >I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever >asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS. >I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is a >bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 OK, here goes! As a student health visitor approaching the end of my course and anticipating my first post I am dismayed by the lack of clarity re my future career as a result of events that have unfolded during this year. It all started so promisingly as I read Maureen draft competencies which appeared to acknowledge and encourage the 'grey' areas of health visiting skills as essential to accrue to strengthen and develop us as a professional group. This documentary invisibility, within our overarching professional body, laughs in the face of the governmental policy documents which has successively raised the profile of the distinctive profession through documents so much ( Making a Difference, Supporting Families, Sure Start etc.). Why is it so impossible for those at the centre of nursing policy to accept the 'unity in diversity' which should allow health visitors a distinctive role? I find some of the responses received by to laughable in their absurdity- writing of the inclusion of the phrase Health visitor as one of three professions because overall it made a 'mouthful'. (At a push) Parallels could be drawn with refusing to acknowledge individual professional within the AHP- would they accept that? NO! I would have written of my thoughts earlier but am up to my eyes in finishing the work which will, hopefully, lead to my qualification. I am excited at the thought of practicing within this professional group. I believe that there is an essential difference in the way I was practicing as a nurse to way I have learned to practice as a health visitor which justifies our being regarded distinctly within our own profession. Writing this, I'm tempted to suggest we go independent! radical streak must be rubbing off on me! You are right , we must continue to protest and argue our case and corner at every and any opportunity. [Any suggestions about how I calm down enough to finish off my systematic review now?] Judy -----Original Message-----From: Cowley [mailto:sarah@...]Sent: 13 June 2002 08:15 Subject: Re: nmcWholly agree . I heard yesterday that Hanratty (NMC vice-president) announced at a conference that the 'new community register ' (i.e. the one they will put in, in place of the current health visiting one) will be for primary care nurse practitioners. This is a 'Chinese whispers' message so I don't know how accurate: apparently, when challenged she agreed that position had not yet been finalised. However, the silence does kind of suggest that everyone is happy with that direction. Houston wrote:>Dear Colleagues>It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many >responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of >health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my >first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's >return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying well >done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for other >people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as a >body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me.>So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as a >measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I am >just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know >how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many folk >printed off stuff for colleagues.>I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever >asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS.>I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is a >bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE>>>>>_________________________________________________________________>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 Dear , I will absolutely be following your good eg and writing direct to NMC using your letter as a model-Thank you, Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 I am with you -I am so tired with work and studying to do anything-but I anm with you all the way.Ann. >From: "Judy " >Reply- > >Subject: RE: nmc >Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:56:07 +0100 > >OK, here goes! > >As a student health visitor approaching the end of my course and >anticipating my first post I am dismayed by the lack of clarity re my future >career as a result of events that have unfolded during this year. It all >started so promisingly as I read Maureen draft competencies which >appeared to acknowledge and encourage the 'grey' areas of health visiting >skills as essential to accrue to strengthen and develop us as a professional >group. > >This documentary invisibility, within our overarching professional body, >laughs in the face of the governmental policy documents which has >successively raised the profile of the distinctive profession through >documents so much ( Making a Difference, Supporting Families, Sure Start >etc.). > >Why is it so impossible for those at the centre of nursing policy to accept >the 'unity in diversity' which should allow health visitors a distinctive >role? I find some of the responses received by to laughable in their >absurdity- writing of the inclusion of the phrase Health visitor as one of >three professions because overall it made a 'mouthful'. (At a push) >Parallels could be drawn with refusing to acknowledge individual >professional within the AHP- would they accept that? NO! > >I would have written of my thoughts earlier but am up to my eyes in >finishing the work which will, hopefully, lead to my qualification. I am >excited at the thought of practicing within this professional group. I >believe that there is an essential difference in the way I was practicing as >a nurse to way I have learned to practice as a health visitor which >justifies our being regarded distinctly within our own profession. > >Writing this, I'm tempted to suggest we go independent! radical streak >must be rubbing off on me! > >You are right , we must continue to protest and argue our case and >corner at every and any opportunity. > >[Any suggestions about how I calm down enough to finish off my systematic >review now?] > >Judy > Re: nmc > > > Wholly agree . I heard yesterday that Hanratty (NMC > vice-president) announced at a conference that the 'new community > register ' (i.e. the one they will put in, in place of the current > health visiting one) will be for primary care nurse practitioners. This > is a 'Chinese whispers' message so I don't know how accurate: > apparently, when challenged she agreed that position had not yet been > finalised. However, the silence does kind of suggest that everyone is > happy with that direction. > > Houston wrote: > > >Dear Colleagues > >It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many > >responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of > >health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my > >first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's > >return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying >well > >done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for >other > >people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as >a > >body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me. > >So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as >a > >measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I >am > >just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know > >how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many >folk > >printed off stuff for colleagues. > >I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever > >asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS. > >I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is >a > >bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 Whatever the real agenda on avoiding 'health visitor' in NMC documentation it seems that administrative niceties are to be the guiding force in documantation in the future. Health visitor has 12 letters and 4 syllables. Public health practitioner has 24 letters and 7 syllables, so will that be excluded in the text, as too much of a mouthful, if it is to be the name of the new register? A neutral address such as 'Registrants' could have been used in each section of the code and an introduction to the document written to explain fully who this refers to as a demonstration of an egalitarian approach to all professional members. The only reference to nurses , midwives and health visitors in the NMC News is from the Lay member. It is to the public that an explanation is owed for the omission by the NMC as much as to the health visiting profession. On 13 Jun 2002 at 7:11, Houston wrote: Dear Colleagues It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying well done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for other people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as a body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me. So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as a measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I am just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many folk printed off stuff for colleagues. I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS. I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is a bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 it was a brilliant letter and terrible remiss of me not to add my support earlier I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments the NMC must be made aware of the strength of feeling and i will write to them immediately thank you for the wake up call jan nmc > Dear Colleagues > It occurred to me that if the moderator of the group were asked how many > responses and how much discussion was there regarding the invisibility of > health visiting in the new NMC printed material there would be four, my > first letter, 's supportive reply, my second letter and 's > return comment to that. Verbally I have had feedback from people saying well > done for carrying that forward but actually what is needed is for other > people to register their view. I feel I can hardly say health visitors as a > body are up in arms if it appears that it is only me. > So I am asking even normally silent members to please post a response as a > measure of the feeling out there. I am not looking for well done . I am > just looking for agreement or disagreement and it would be useful to know > how much disemmination outwards on this issue that there was. How many folk > printed off stuff for colleagues. > I guess I would like to be saying unequivocally to the NMC if I was ever > asked THE HEALTH VISITORS WERE COMLETELY UP IN ARMS. > I dont mind leading from the front on this very big issue but guys it is a > bit lonely out here - comments please ONE LINERS WILL BE FINE > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2002 Report Share Posted June 17, 2002 Dear You, your campaigning for health visiting (and the recognition of health visiting as a profession in its own right) have my unfailing support! The omission of health visiting from the Code and the NMC Newsletter IS an issue that is being discussed by practitioners - certainly here in Hull. It was debated at our CPHVA Centre meeting last week and mourned over at our workplace journal club meeting. Our Centre has submitted a motion to be debated at this years CPHVA AGM calling on the CPHVA to " promote and secure " the protected title health visiting. While we are keen to see our fellow practitioners out there in the community thrive and progress, we are just as keen not to see our profession literally wiped out. I was taken aback at Stuart Skyte's ill considered reply to your letter. Do let us know when you receive a response from him to your letter. Best wishes and thank you Moira Moira Graham Health visitor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2002 Report Share Posted June 22, 2002 , I am absolutely behind you on this one.I feel dismay at the omission of health visiting in the NMC documentation and am in full support of views expressed of health visiting .Thank you for taking this forward. Nina Heaps >From: " Houston" >Reply- > >Subject: nmc >Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:53:29 +0100 > >Thank you Thank you Thank you >keep them coming coming coming > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 I would if I'm free that day. June Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 I'd be happy to be involved in a meeting with NMC HV members. Professor Liz Meerabeau Head of the School of Health and Social Care University of Greenwich Avery Hill Campus Southwood Site Avery Hill Road London SE9 2UG 020 8331 9150 020 8331 8060 (fax) E.Meerabeau@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2002 Report Share Posted December 8, 2002 I think that is great . Also, the thing that was discussed by a group of us at the end of the depressing NMC meeting last month, was that the opinion of the general public is likely to be very influential. So if anyone has contacts with user representative groups; e.g. parenting groups, breast feeding groups, any others? they could bring the matter to their attention and ask them to send the NMC response form to the NMC before the end of the month. best wishes Houston wrote: >Re the ongoing NMC saga >Thanks for that Charlene, I felt really annoyed on your behalf when I read >that. I know full well that you are not easily intimidated and so on the >basis of that and the Tim Clement extract I have written to my MP, >well he has had a year off lets be fair!!! just to let him know that the >issue is by no means resolved. The current position does a terrible >disservice to the general public who deserve better. >Anyone else wishing to join the fray again - at a moment when the Union >again - seems unclear about its position can do so by using the very easy >www.faxyourmp.com >The electronic age is wonderful no stamp required!!! >Charlene thank you for galvanising me into action! > Houston > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 To interested parties the latest missive via my MP from the Minister re the changes to the NMC register. _________________________________________________________________ Chat online in real time with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.co.uk 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.