Guest guest Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 Maggie, I agree with your concern about loss of data. may have some comments, in the light of her experience of gathering data to evaluate Sure Start, as well. My main concern about Hall 4 (which, overall I think is good) is to avoid giving the message that, now we have fewer scheduled 'checks' there is no need for health visitors or school nurses to ever see families/children unless they have problems. That is not the intention, any more than any earlier versions of Hall intended that health visiting should become a purely 'checking' service, but it has been the effect in some places. best wishes Maggie Lavin wrote: >Subject: Milestones > >, I wondered exactly what data the D of H is intending to use to >collect this information for targets for Education and Skills, especially >the 2-year speech and language development. How will personal, social & >emotional development be measured too? As many of us in the health field are >now embracing Hall's latest, there will be little we can provide to inform >the process. I wonder if anyone else is concerned re this loss of data (for >so many other fields too)? > >Kind regards > >Maggie > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 Targets are OK but surely more local realistic targets would make communities feel better even if they mange to achieve even modest gains. Having in the past and recently been working on change projects - encouragement about small achievements can be so worthwhile for people who have not had any encouragement at all for anything in thier lives. If targets are unrealistically high, then for those that feel it unobtainable, it then produces, it produces a feeling of 'why bother' and a disincentive. Di Prochaska and Clemente model of change is good on an individual level but even for some really deprived communities, we found that for some projects, even a certificate of course attendance was enough to stimulate goal setting and associated learning that energises people. In message <Law10-F89VHyxfLRZkG0003b0f6@...>, Houston <annamhouston@...> writes > Yup! > you are right, I am painfully aware of this sort of language > and how > high/difficult these targets are to meet. It was pointed out to me > recently > that it is better to have targets that require high achievement > than to not > have any targets at all, apparently that is worse - that was from > someone > in a community intervention pre-Sure Start where a lot of energy > went into > thinking up what to aim for and aiming at not a lot. So I try to > remember > that when I berate the impossibilities of the targets and the long > time > frames that are needed to see the difference, even the small > difference!! > > > >From: > >Reply- > > > >Subject: Digest Number 939 > >Date: 20 May 2003 11:55:58 -0000 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 The snag is that Hall's remit clearly focused on identifying impairments and developmental abnormalities, not on promoting family health and development. You get what you commission! Of course, a purely medical focus wouldn't have produced that wider family health focus since this isn't a medical task, even in public health medicine. The limits were set before the work began. If nobody suggests that there are other dimensions to health visiting, I can imagine hard nosed trusts simply implementing Hall and dropping the rest, couldn't you? I don't here much on this from the national spokespeople and after our experiences over the last 3 years, that's cause for my concern. On 21 May 2003 at 6:44, Cowley wrote: > Maggie, I agree with your concern about loss of data. may have > some comments, in the light of her experience of gathering data to > evaluate Sure Start, as well. > > My main concern about Hall 4 (which, overall I think is good) is to > avoid giving the message that, now we have fewer scheduled 'checks' > there is no need for health visitors or school nurses to ever see > families/children unless they have problems. That is not the intention, > any more than any earlier versions of Hall intended that health visiting > should become a purely 'checking' service, but it has been the effect > in some places. best wishes > > > > Maggie Lavin wrote: > > >Subject: Milestones > > > >, I wondered exactly what data the D of H is intending to use to > >collect this information for targets for Education and Skills, especially > >the 2-year speech and language development. How will personal, social & > >emotional development be measured too? As many of us in the health field are > >now embracing Hall's latest, there will be little we can provide to inform > >the process. I wonder if anyone else is concerned re this loss of data (for > >so many other fields too)? > > > >Kind regards > > > >Maggie > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Hi Alana, I plan on attending college in Ohio but I currently live in New York. Thanks for all your help! MJ " I'll remember you, though. I remember everyone who leaves. " ~ Lilo & Stitch Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:41:57 -0800 From: " Alana R. Theriault " <alrt@...> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: a poll (marriage & healthcare) MJ...The laws are different in every state. In which state(s) are you interested? 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.