RE: health visitor numbers

March 16, 2003

Many thanks for these figures, . They certainly add to the argument for opening the entry gate to health visiting.

Best wishes,

health visitor numbers

I am back to preparing my conference paper. The Department of Health do keep workforce numbers for health visitors. The attached figures relate to England only; I have not chased N Ireland, Wales or Scotland. From when I was last looking at these figures for the scoping project I did for the UKCC in 1999-2000, I know Scotland charge for collating information for anyone who does not work in the NHS in Scotland; until 1998 they collated their figures according to staff employed on the health visiting budget, but would give a breakdown by grade. The figures I collected then were for 1998. They were:Wales, 643 whole time equivalent;N Ireland 434 whole time equivalent;Scotland 1459 whole time equivalentEngland 10,070 whole time equivalent.In 2000 the England figures went down to 10,050, but rose to 10,190 in 2001. I am still chasing September 2002 figures, but it may be a bit early for them to be available. What is quite striking, is that in 2000 (the most recent figures for which I have an age breakdown), one in eight health visitors were already past their official retirement age of 55 years, with only one in four under forty years old and just 178 men. How well does that endear our profession to 'young mothers' or to fathers? Interestingly, the number whose age is 'unknown' has increased a lot (from 130 in 1992 to 463 in 2000). Can anyone suggest why that may be?There is a growing gap between 'headcount' (ie, total number of people employed) and 'whole time equivalent,' pointing to a great increase in part time working, which may be related to the age issue as people cut down in the run-up to retirement. The numbers of staff in post have risen slightly from a low in the mid 1990s (the lowest was in 1994, the year that GP fundholding first 'kicked in,' but reporting may have been inaccurate), but have remained virtually the same since. This is despite all the new initiatives, plans, projects and roles that health visitors are expected to develop and move into. Overall figures are still 5% lower than they were in the late 1980s, when the population was lower. I guess my next move is to look out the latest census for population rates. What is quite clear, is that we are not succeeding in convincing commissioners to invest in more health visiting posts if they want to achive all their inequalities/public health priorities. best wishes

March 16, 2003

Interesting findings - my thoughts on the part time issue are two - the

younger health visitors with children are mainly working part time and

many - not necessarily the older ones - are also working part time as they

find it too stressful to do a whole week and it is a way of coping.

I had this said to me last week by an HV in her mid 40's who has recently

reduced here working week to four days.

Margaret

health visitor numbers

> I am back to preparing my conference paper. The Department of Health do

> keep workforce numbers for health visitors. The attached figures relate

> to England only; I have not chased N Ireland, Wales or Scotland. From

> when I was last looking at these figures for the scoping project I did

> for the UKCC in 1999-2000, I know Scotland charge for collating

> information for anyone who does not work in the NHS in Scotland; until

> 1998 they collated their figures according to staff employed on the

> health visiting budget, but would give a breakdown by grade. The

> figures I collected then were for 1998. They were:

>

> Wales, 643 whole time equivalent;

> N Ireland 434 whole time equivalent;

> Scotland 1459 whole time equivalent

> England 10,070 whole time equivalent.

>

> In 2000 the England figures went down to 10,050, but rose to 10,190 in

> 2001. I am still chasing September 2002 figures, but it may be a bit

> early for them to be available. What is quite striking, is that in 2000

> (the most recent figures for which I have an age breakdown), one in

> eight health visitors were already past their official retirement age of

> 55 years, with only one in four under forty years old and just 178 men.

> How well does that endear our profession to 'young mothers' or to

> fathers?

>

> Interestingly, the number whose age is 'unknown' has increased a lot

> (from 130 in 1992 to 463 in 2000). Can anyone suggest why that may be?

>

> There is a growing gap between 'headcount' (ie, total number of people

> employed) and 'whole time equivalent,' pointing to a great increase in

> part time working, which may be related to the age issue as people cut

> down in the run-up to retirement. The numbers of staff in post have

> risen slightly from a low in the mid 1990s (the lowest was in 1994, the

> year that GP fundholding first 'kicked in,' but reporting may have been

> inaccurate), but have remained virtually the same since. This is

> despite all the new initiatives, plans, projects and roles that health

> visitors are expected to develop and move into. Overall figures are

> still 5% lower than they were in the late 1980s, when the population was

> lower.

>

> I guess my next move is to look out the latest census for population

> rates. What is quite clear, is that we are not succeeding in convincing

> commissioners to invest in more health visiting posts if they want to

> achive all their inequalities/public health priorities. best wishes

>

March 17, 2003

, in relation to the comment about how an older workforce 'endears' itself

to younger parents, I don't think there's any research about what

clients' views on HV age are, is there?

The increase in part time working is also occurring in general

practice, and I'm not sure its being properly factored into workforce

planning. The need to rebalance the age profile of HV is I think

probably an argument for direct entry. And as you probably know,

social work has recently reduced its lower age limit.

< >

From: " Margaret Buttigieg " <margaret@...>

Date sent: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 18:54:24 -0000

Subject: Re: health visitor numbers

Send reply to:

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]