Guest guest Posted March 5, 2003 Report Share Posted March 5, 2003 I shall be out of the university until Monday next, March 10th. If your message is urgent please contact either one of my colleagues, Frances Appleby on 0207-815-8014 or n Frost on 0207-815-8461 Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 The NMC met yesterday, 6th March and reached an agreement that I hope I have accurately. It is that: 1. There will be a three part register; one for nursing, one for midwifery and one for 'specialist community public health nursing'. 2. The third part will be predicated upon nursing or midwifery; there will be no direct entry at this time. 3. In the first instance, everyone who is currently registered on the health visiting part (Part 11) of the UKCC register will transfer on to the third part of the NMC register. 4. The name 'registered health visitor' will be protected within that part of the register. 5. There will be future work to look at how school and occupational health nurses/advisers can be incorporated into that part of the register The health visiting representatives are completely clear that they wanted a direct entry register, which had received approval of around 80% of respondents tot he consultation. A flexible entry gate, combined with the robustness of the agreed competences, would be in line with all sorts of other developments around the children and family workforce, planning for the NSF and the child protection green paper. However, they were told categorically that the wording of the Nursing and Midwifery Order prevented this from happening. The official government view is that it is up to the health visiting representatives to name and configure the register as they wish; but they must stay within the law. So, they were stuck in a non-progressing cycle, which they hope will be broken by settling for the above. This will now go out to consultation again, before being finally approved and written into statute and the training rules. I think they have done brilliantly to get us this far, even if we are not yet where we want to be. What do others think? best wishes Cowley wrote: >Gill, you are right; we need to think about how we can direct our >emotional energy in a positive direction. After tomorrow's NMC meeting, >we will have a clearer idea about exactly what the health visiting >representatives manage to pull together on behalf of the public and >profession. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2003 Report Share Posted March 8, 2003 I shall be out of the university until Monday next, March 10th. If your message is urgent please contact either one of my colleagues, Frances Appleby on 0207-815-8014 or n Frost on 0207-815-8461 Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2003 Report Share Posted March 8, 2003 Thank you for your clear summary, when will/where will the fuller text be available? Judy -----Original Message-----From: Cowley [mailto:sarah@...]Sent: 07 March 2003 21:57 Subject: Re: NMCThe NMC met yesterday, 6th March and reached an agreement that I hope I have accurately. It is that: 1. There will be a three part register; one for nursing, one formidwifery and one for 'specialist community public health nursing'.2. The third part will be predicated upon nursing or midwifery; therewill be no direct entry at this time.3. In the first instance, everyone who is currently registered on the health visiting part (Part 11) of the UKCC register will transfer on to thethird part of the NMC register.4. The name 'registered health visitor' will be protected within thatpart of the register.5. There will be future work to look at how school and occupational health nurses/advisers can be incorporated into that part of the registerThe health visiting representatives are completely clear that theywanted a direct entry register, which had received approval of around80% of respondents tot he consultation. A flexible entry gate,combined with the robustness of the agreed competences, would be inline with all sorts of other developments around the children andfamily workforce, planning for the NSF and the child protection greenpaper. However, they were told categorically that the wording of theNursing and Midwifery Order prevented this from happening.The official government view is that it is up to the health visitingrepresentatives to name and configure the register as they wish; butthey must stay within the law. So, they were stuck in anon-progressing cycle, which they hope will be broken by settling forthe above. This will now go out to consultation again, before beingfinally approved and written into statute and the training rules.I think they have done brilliantly to get us this far, even if we arenot yet where we want to be. What do others think? best wishes Cowley wrote:>Gill, you are right; we need to think about how we can direct our >emotional energy in a positive direction. After tomorrow's NMC meeting, >we will have a clearer idea about exactly what the health visiting >representatives manage to pull together on behalf of the public and >profession. >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2003 Report Share Posted March 9, 2003 I shall be out of the university until Monday next, March 10th. If your message is urgent please contact either one of my colleagues, Frances Appleby on 0207-815-8014 or n Frost on 0207-815-8461 Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2003 Report Share Posted March 9, 2003 I am not sure Judy, although that is a good question! We can expect lots of confused hype in the nursing press, probably including Community Practitioner, with not a lot of explanation or clarity. I notice, for example, that last week's Nursing Standard quotes Mark from CPHVA saying that a direct entry programme would be against CPHVA policy (that was a vote that passed me by, if it happened!) yet their press release on the CPHVA website says quite explicitly that they would consider 'well-considered proposals' for this. Still quite negative, but distinctly different from an oppositional policy. The current proposals, like the last ones, have to go out to consultation before being finalised in the autumn. That consultation is likely to begin in April/May and may be the first formal written indication of what has been agreed. Presumably the confidential paper that was voted on and approved in Council will become a matter of 'public record' at some point, in which case Maureen may be able to post it (or a web link) on to Senate; perhaps she would advise about that? It may be better to wait for the later paper that makes sense of the implications, which will be what the consultation paper is intended to do. best wishes Judy wrote: Thank you for your clear summary, when will/where will the fuller text be available? Judy Re: NMC The NMC met yesterday, 6th March and reached an agreement that I hope I have accurately. It is that: 1. There will be a three part register; one for nursing, one for midwifery and one for 'specialist community public health nursing'. 2. The third part will be predicated upon nursing or midwifery; there will be no direct entry at this time. 3. In the first instance, everyone who is currently registered on the health visiting part (Part 11) of the UKCC register will transfer on to the third part of the NMC register. 4. The name 'registered health visitor' will be protected within that part of the register. 5. There will be future work to look at how school and occupational health nurses/advisers can be incorporated into that part of the register The health visiting representatives are completely clear that they wanted a direct entry register, which had received approval of around 80% of respondents tot he consultation. A flexible entry gate, combined with the robustness of the agreed competences, would be in line with all sorts of other developments around the children and family workforce, planning for the NSF and the child protection green paper. However, they were told categorically that the wording of the Nursing and Midwifery Order prevented this from happening. The official government view is that it is up to the health visiting representatives to name and configure the register as they wish; but they must stay within the law. So, they were stuck in a non-progressing cycle, which they hope will be broken by settling for the above. This will now go out to consultation again, before being finally approved and written into statute and the training rules. I think they have done brilliantly to get us this far, even if we are not yet where we want to be. What do others think? best wishes Cowley wrote: >Gill, you are right; we need to think about how we can direct our >emotional energy in a positive direction. After tomorrow's NMC meeting, >we will have a clearer idea about exactly what the health visiting >representatives manage to pull together on behalf of the public and >profession. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2003 Report Share Posted March 11, 2003 Just to let everyone know that I had a message from Mark , who has written to the Nursing Standard asking them to correct the inaccurate impression that CPHVA is opposed to direct entry programmes. He draws attention to two press releases so far this year, that have stated that the CPHVA is opened-minded about the possibility of direct entry in the future, although it would like any proposals for this to be well-thought out and cogently argued. Thank you for reassuring us Mark; I look forward to those 'cogent arguments' in future! Best wishes Cowley wrote: I am not sure Judy, although that is a good question! We can expect lots of confused hype in the nursing press, probably including Community Practitioner, with not a lot of explanation or clarity. I notice, for example, that last week's Nursing Standard quotes Mark from CPHVA saying that a direct entry programme would be against CPHVA policy (that was a vote that passed me by, if it happened!) yet their press release on the CPHVA website says quite explicitly that they would consider 'well-considered proposals' for this. Still quite negative, but distinctly different from an oppositional policy. The current proposals, like the last ones, have to go out to consultation before being finalised in the autumn. That consultation is likely to begin in April/May and may be the first formal written indication of what has been agreed. Presumably the confidential paper that was voted on and approved in Council will become a matter of 'public record' at some point, in which case Maureen may be able to post it (or a web link) on to Senate; perhaps she would advise about that? It may be better to wait for the later paper that makes sense of the implications, which will be what the consultation paper is intended to do. best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Here are the consultation documents best wishes Janet wrote: Dear Maureen, When I tried to get on to the pages you suggested using the address you gave the message came up that the page could not be found at that address, can you throw any light on this please? Janet Lecturer in Public Health Nursing Joint Pathway Leader PHN Elles Building, Room L236 University of Paisley Paisley PA1 2BE Tel 0141 849 4108 < > 09/23/03 10:32am >>> 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.