RE: RGN status

July 4, 2006

Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a huge

victory. If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would

not have lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce

12 years ago, we would not have lost health visiting education (both

occasions when we were outvoted by nurses having a say about health

visiting). I will give my interpretation of it to explain, and hope

others will chip in and put me right if I am misinterpreting it,

because I have not had any 'NMC' conversations to pass on.

First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when someone is

struck off register), but does say that you have to have current

experience in an area of registration to maintain that registration as

'current.' If you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20

or 30 years, you need a return to practice course first. The midwifery

example is a good one; if you want to go back to general nursing after

having worked in midwifery for years, you need a return to practice

course first, or vice versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have

not worked in the field for years. This will now be applied to the

NMC3 register as well. So (which is why I think it is great) all those

people who qualified as health visitors, never worked in the field or

moved out of it years ago, will no longer be able to claim current

registration in that field, even though they keep the qualification.

Those who have continued, like me, to practice by virtue of that

qualification, albeit through education or research will be able to

keep their registration current. Managers and teachers etc. who cover

both nursing and health visiting fields (or other SCPHN) will be able

to re-register in both fields. I suspect that some health visitors,

especially those who think that nursing is in everything they do, will

be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse prescribing' and

joint working with practice nurses, screening clinics, sick or special

needs children, family planning etc, will also be able to make a

convincing case that they have used both qualifications for the

required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in both

qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days relevant

to nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of

hours. Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses

as with others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even

though I am involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I

doubt that I would want to renew registration in the first part of the

register, because I cannot think I would ever want to work in a post

where it is required, but the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for

many who are younger than me, and who may wish to return to general

nursing at some stage in their career or for many other reasons, it

would make sense for them.

It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in the

occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise, so

they will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to our

register. it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register,

and continue to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of

all the nurses who want to control our profession; I am pleased that

they will no longer have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots

who disagree with me, so thanks for raising it. I look forward to

discussion and debate!

best wishes

Creagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:

Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states

that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg.

nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community

public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours

in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that

the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors.

Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.

Cecilia Creagh

***************************************************************************

This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended

recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or

distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on

its

contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank

you

for your co-operation.

***************************************************************************

July 4, 2006

Thanks for this explaination - my view is the same as yours as although I am on the first part of the register - no way could I practice as a nurse in hospital or the community but I could work as an HV and like you feel I keep my qualification present.

By nature of the soem of the work I do I gues i could claim to be registered on the first part of the register as a nurse but know I could not do the job anymore.

May be we shoud get to press release soemthing form the UKPHS and the SIg about this

Margaret

Re: RGN status

Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a huge victory. If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would not have lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce 12 years ago, we would not have lost health visiting education (both occasions when we were outvoted by nurses having a say about health visiting). I will give my interpretation of it to explain, and hope others will chip in and put me right if I am misinterpreting it, because I have not had any 'NMC' conversations to pass on. First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when someone is struck off register), but does say that you have to have current experience in an area of registration to maintain that registration as 'current.' If you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20 or 30 years, you need a return to practice course first. The midwifery example is a good one; if you want to go back to general nursing after having worked in midwifery for years, you need a return to practice course first, or vice versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have not worked in the field for years. This will now be applied to the NMC3 register as well. So (which is why I think it is great) all those people who qualified as health visitors, never worked in the field or moved out of it years ago, will no longer be able to claim current registration in that field, even though they keep the qualification. Those who have continued, like me, to practice by virtue of that qualification, albeit through education or research will be able to keep their registration current. Managers and teachers etc. who cover both nursing and health visiting fields (or other SCPHN) will be able to re-register in both fields. I suspect that some health visitors, especially those who think that nursing is in everything they do, will be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse prescribing' and joint working with practice nurses, screening clinics, sick or special needs children, family planning etc, will also be able to make a convincing case that they have used both qualifications for the required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in both qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days relevant to nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of hours. Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses as with others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even though I am involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I doubt that I would want to renew registration in the first part of the register, because I cannot think I would ever want to work in a post where it is required, but the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for many who are younger than me, and who may wish to return to general nursing at some stage in their career or for many other reasons, it would make sense for them. It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in the occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise, so they will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to our register. it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register, and continue to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of all the nurses who want to control our profession; I am pleased that they will no longer have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots who disagree with me, so thanks for raising it. I look forward to discussion and debate! best wishesCreagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:

Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg. nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors. Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.Cecilia Creagh***************************************************************************This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intendedrecipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy ordistribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on itscontents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Pleaseinform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank youfor your co-operation.***************************************************************************

July 5, 2006

Here is another tale

For those staff who have a duel qualification i.e RGN and Midwifery but does

not renew or maintain their RGN registration and decide to undertake HV

training they will not be allowed to do so as the criteria to undertake the

training is their RGN qualification.

I know of a Midwife who applied and was acccepted onto the HV course and

whilst she was into her training It was discovered that her RGN

qualification had lapsed only her midwifery qualification was renewed.

No one checked re her RGN status. as she was a practicing Midwife. it was

assumed that she had both qualification.

When this was noticed it took the university and the NMC to back date her

RGN qualification to allow her to continue.

Ken

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

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: RGN status

>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:09:08 +0100

>

>Thanks for this explaination - my view is the same as yours as

>although I am on the first part of the register - no way could I practice

>as a nurse in hospital or the community but I could work as an HV and like

>you feel I keep my qualification present.

>

>By nature of the soem of the work I do I gues i could claim to be

>registered on the first part of the register as a nurse but know I could

>not do the job anymore.

>

>May be we shoud get to press release soemthing form the UKPHS and

>the SIg about this

>

>Margaret

> Re: RGN status

>

> Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a huge victory.

> If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would not have

>lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce 12 years ago,

>we would not have lost health visiting education (both occasions when we

>were outvoted by nurses having a say about health visiting). I will give

>my interpretation of it to explain, and hope others will chip in and put

>me right if I am misinterpreting it, because I have not had any 'NMC'

>conversations to pass on.

>

> First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when someone is

>struck off register), but does say that you have to have current experience

>in an area of registration to maintain that registration as 'current.' If

>you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20 or 30 years, you

>need a return to practice course first. The midwifery example is a good

>one; if you want to go back to general nursing after having worked in

>midwifery for years, you need a return to practice course first, or vice

>versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have not worked in the field

>for years. This will now be applied to the NMC3 register as well. So

>(which is why I think it is great) all those people who qualified as health

>visitors, never worked in the field or moved out of it years ago, will no

>longer be able to claim current registration in that field, even though

>they keep the qualification. Those who have continued, like me, to

>practice by virtue of that qualification, albeit through education or

>research will be able to keep their registration current. Managers and

>teachers etc. who cover both nursing and health visiting fields (or other

>SCPHN) will be able to re-register in both fields. I suspect that some

>health visitors, especially those who think that nursing is in everything

>they do, will be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse

>prescribing' and joint working with practice nurses, screening clinics,

>sick or special needs children, family planning etc, will also be able to

>make a convincing case that they have used both qualifications for the

>required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in both

>qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days relevant to

>nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of hours.

>Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses as with

>others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even though I am

>involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I doubt that I would

>want to renew registration in the first part of the register, because I

>cannot think I would ever want to work in a post where it is required, but

>the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for many who are younger than me,

>and who may wish to return to general nursing at some stage in their career

>or for many other reasons, it would make sense for them.

>

> It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in the

>occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise, so they

>will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to our register.

>it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register, and continue

>to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of all the nurses

>who want to control our profession; I am pleased that they will no longer

>have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots who disagree with me,

>so thanks for raising it. I look forward to discussion and debate!

>

> best wishes

>

> Creagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:

>

> Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states

> that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg.

> nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community

> public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours

> in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that

> the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors.

> Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.

> Cecilia Creagh

>

>***************************************************************************

> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the

>intended

> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or

> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance

>on its

> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank

>you

> for your co-operation.

>

>***************************************************************************

>

July 5, 2006

Hi Ken,

I don't really understand this because a midwifery qualification should be sufficient entry criteria, with or without her nursing qualification, as long as she was active on the NMC register for one of these.

It all seems a little strange

ChambersPrincipal Lecturer in Health VisitingSchool of Health and Social CareOxford s UniversityPhone: 07973 617482e-mail: cachambers@...

Re: RGN status>>> Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a huge victory. > If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would not have >lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce 12 years ago, >we would not have lost health visiting education (both occasions when we >were outvoted by nurses having a say about health visiting). I will give >my interpretation of it to explain, and hope others will chip in and put >me right if I am misinterpreting it, because I have not had any 'NMC' >conversations to pass on.>> First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when someone is >struck off register), but does say that you have to have current experience >in an area of registration to maintain that registration as 'current.' If >you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20 or 30 years, you >need a return to practice course first. The midwifery example is a good >one; if you want to go back to general nursing after having worked in >midwifery for years, you need a return to practice course first, or vice >versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have not worked in the field >for years. This will now be applied to the NMC3 register as well. So >(which is why I think it is great) all those people who qualified as health >visitors, never worked in the field or moved out of it years ago, will no >longer be able to claim current registration in that field, even though >they keep the qualification. Those who have continued, like me, to >practice by virtue of that qualification, albeit through education or >research will be able to keep their registration current. Managers and >teachers etc. who cover both nursing and health visiting fields (or other >SCPHN) will be able to re-register in both fields. I suspect that some >health visitors, especially those who think that nursing is in everything >they do, will be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse >prescribing' and joint working with practice nurses, screening clinics, >sick or special needs children, family planning etc, will also be able to >make a convincing case that they have used both qualifications for the >required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in both >qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days relevant to >nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of hours. >Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses as with >others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even though I am >involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I doubt that I would >want to renew registration in the first part of the register, because I >cannot think I would ever want to work in a post where it is required, but >the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for many who are younger than me, >and who may wish to return to general nursing at some stage in their career >or for many other reasons, it would make sense for them.>> It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in the >occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise, so they >will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to our register. >it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register, and continue >to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of all the nurses >who want to control our profession; I am pleased that they will no longer >have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots who disagree with me, >so thanks for raising it. I look forward to discussion and debate!>> best wishes>> >>>>>> Creagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:>> Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states> that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg.> nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community> public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours> in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that> the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors.> Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.> Cecilia Creagh>> >***************************************************************************> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the >intended> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance >on its> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank >you> for your co-operation.> >***************************************************************************>>>>

July 5, 2006

Hi Ken

How unfortunate, but I'm not sure when this happened, as the midwifery

qualification has been sufficient criteria for entry onto the HV course

since my involvement in Higher Education (2000). I'm sure or somebody

could enlighten us on the historical aspect.

Ann

Ann Day

Senior Lecturer

Northumbria University

Coach Lane Campus (east)

Newcastle

NE7 7XA

0191 2156714

ann.day@...

Re: RGN status

>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:09:08 +0100

>

>Thanks for this explaination - my view is the same as yours as

>although I am on the first part of the register - no way could I

practice

>as a nurse in hospital or the community but I could work as an HV and

like

>you feel I keep my qualification present.

>

>By nature of the soem of the work I do I gues i could claim to be

>registered on the first part of the register as a nurse but know I

could

>not do the job anymore.

>

>May be we shoud get to press release soemthing form the UKPHS

and

>the SIg about this

>

>Margaret

> Re: RGN status

>

> Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a huge

victory.

> If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would not have

>lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce 12 years

ago,

>we would not have lost health visiting education (both occasions when

we

>were outvoted by nurses having a say about health visiting). I will

give

>my interpretation of it to explain, and hope others will chip in and

put

>me right if I am misinterpreting it, because I have not had any 'NMC'

>conversations to pass on.

>

> First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when someone

is

>struck off register), but does say that you have to have current

experience

>in an area of registration to maintain that registration as 'current.'

If

>you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20 or 30 years, you

>need a return to practice course first. The midwifery example is a

good

>one; if you want to go back to general nursing after having worked in

>midwifery for years, you need a return to practice course first, or

vice

>versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have not worked in the

field

>for years. This will now be applied to the NMC3 register as well. So

>(which is why I think it is great) all those people who qualified as

health

>visitors, never worked in the field or moved out of it years ago, will

no

>longer be able to claim current registration in that field, even though

>they keep the qualification. Those who have continued, like me, to

>practice by virtue of that qualification, albeit through education or

>research will be able to keep their registration current. Managers and

>teachers etc. who cover both nursing and health visiting fields (or

other

>SCPHN) will be able to re-register in both fields. I suspect that some

>health visitors, especially those who think that nursing is in

everything

>they do, will be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse

>prescribing' and joint working with practice nurses, screening clinics,

>sick or special needs children, family planning etc, will also be able

to

>make a convincing case that they have used both qualifications for the

>required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in both

>qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days relevant

to

>nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of hours.

>Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses as with

>others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even though I

am

>involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I doubt that I

would

>want to renew registration in the first part of the register, because I

>cannot think I would ever want to work in a post where it is required,

but

>the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for many who are younger than

me,

>and who may wish to return to general nursing at some stage in their

career

>or for many other reasons, it would make sense for them.

>

> It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in the

>occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise, so

they

>will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to our

register.

>it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register, and

continue

>to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of all the

nurses

>who want to control our profession; I am pleased that they will no

longer

>have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots who disagree with

me,

>so thanks for raising it. I look forward to discussion and debate!

>

> best wishes

>

> Creagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:

>

> Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states

> that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg.

> nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community

> public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours

> in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that

> the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors.

> Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.

> Cecilia Creagh

>

>***********************************************************************

****

> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the

>intended

> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose,

copy or

> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in

reliance

>on its

> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Please

> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it.

Thank

>you

> for your co-operation.

>

>***********************************************************************

****

>

July 5, 2006

I agree Ann. I am aware that in the Northern Region we have short listed/recruited candidates to the Specialist Practitioner Health Visiting Programme who have had a direct entry midwifery qualification and not necessarily a general nursing registration.

Horsley

Locality Matron

Gateshead Primary Care Trust

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Ann DaySent: 05 July 2006 10:14'ken wong '; ' 'Subject: RE: RGN status

Hi KenHow unfortunate, but I'm not sure when this happened, as the midwiferyqualification has been sufficient criteria for entry onto the HV coursesince my involvement in Higher Education (2000). I'm sure or somebodycould enlighten us on the historical aspect. AnnAnn Day Senior LecturerNorthumbria UniversityCoach Lane Campus (east)NewcastleNE7 7XA0191 2156714ann.daynorthumbria (DOT) ac.uk Re: RGN status>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:09:08 +0100>>Thanks for this explaination - my view is the same as yours as >although I am on the first part of the register - no way could Ipractice >as a nurse in hospital or the community but I could work as an HV andlike >you feel I keep my qualification present.>>By nature of the soem of the work I do I gues i could claim to be >registered on the first part of the register as a nurse but know Icould >not do the job anymore.>>May be we shoud get to press release soemthing form the UKPHSand >the SIg about this>>Margaret> Re: RGN status>>> Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a hugevictory. > If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would not have>lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce 12 yearsago, >we would not have lost health visiting education (both occasions whenwe >were outvoted by nurses having a say about health visiting). I willgive >my interpretation of it to explain, and hope others will chip in andput >me right if I am misinterpreting it, because I have not had any 'NMC' >conversations to pass on.>> First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when someoneis >struck off register), but does say that you have to have currentexperience >in an area of registration to maintain that registration as 'current.'If >you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20 or 30 years, you>need a return to practice course first. The midwifery example is agood >one; if you want to go back to general nursing after having worked in >midwifery for years, you need a return to practice course first, orvice >versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have not worked in thefield >for years. This will now be applied to the NMC3 register as well. So >(which is why I think it is great) all those people who qualified ashealth >visitors, never worked in the field or moved out of it years ago, willno >longer be able to claim current registration in that field, even though>they keep the qualification. Those who have continued, like me, to >practice by virtue of that qualification, albeit through education or >research will be able to keep their registration current. Managers and>teachers etc. who cover both nursing and health visiting fields (orother >SCPHN) will be able to re-register in both fields. I suspect that some>health visitors, especially those who think that nursing is ineverything >they do, will be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse >prescribing' and joint working with practice nurses, screening clinics,>sick or special needs children, family planning etc, will also be ableto >make a convincing case that they have used both qualifications for the >required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in both >qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days relevantto >nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of hours. >Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses as with>others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even though Iam >involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I doubt that Iwould >want to renew registration in the first part of the register, because I>cannot think I would ever want to work in a post where it is required,but >the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for many who are younger thanme, >and who may wish to return to general nursing at some stage in theircareer >or for many other reasons, it would make sense for them.>> It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in the>occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise, sothey >will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to ourregister. >it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register, andcontinue >to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of all thenurses >who want to control our profession; I am pleased that they will nolonger >have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots who disagree withme, >so thanks for raising it. I look forward to discussion and debate!>> best wishes>> >>>>>> Creagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:>> Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states> that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg.> nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community> public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours> in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that> the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors.> Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.> Cecilia Creagh>> >***************************************************************************> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the >intended> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose,copy or> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action inreliance >on its> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.Please> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it.Thank >you> for your co-operation.> >***************************************************************************>>>>

July 5, 2006

Hello Ken. Yes, I agree with the other comments that have been made.

Until 2000, RGN training (Part 1 of theold UKCC register) was

pre-requisite in law, although the UKCC made a rule change allowing

entry to the training by nurses on any part of the nursing register, so

that those undertaking Project 2000 training could access HV training.

They included nurses from any part of the nursing register, but not

midwives; also they did not change the statutory instrument. That

meant programmes validated at that time rather bent the law, but there

was a clause in the old statute that allowed exceptions, with

permission of the UKCC, so it was was not quite outside the law.

When this anomaly was realised in 2000, they updated the statutory

instrument, allowing entry for anyone with first level training on any

part of the UKCC register, including midwives who are not also

registered as nurses. That was carried forward in 2004, when the HV

register was closed and new NMC3 part of the register opened. Perhaps

your example predated this time?

best wishes

ken wong wrote:

Here is another tale

For those staff who have a duel qualification i.e RGN and Midwifery but

does

not renew or maintain their RGN registration and decide to undertake HV

training they will not be allowed to do so as the criteria to undertake

the

training is their RGN qualification.

I know of a Midwife who applied and was acccepted onto the HV course

and

whilst she was into her training It was discovered that her RGN

qualification had lapsed only her midwifery qualification was renewed.

No one checked re her RGN status. as she was a practicing Midwife. it

was

assumed that she had both qualification.

When this was noticed it took the university and the NMC to back date

her

RGN qualification to allow her to continue.

Ken

>From: "Margaret Buttigieg" <margaretmabconsult (DOT) freeserve.co.uk>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: RGN status

>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:09:08 +0100

>

>Thanks for this explaination - my view is the same as yours

as

>although I am on the first part of the register - no way could I

practice

>as a nurse in hospital or the community but I could work as an HV

and like

>you feel I keep my qualification present.

>

>By nature of the soem of the work I do I gues i could claim to be

>registered on the first part of the register as a nurse but know I

could

>not do the job anymore.

>

>May be we shoud get to press release soemthing form the

UKPHS and

>the SIg about this

>

>Margaret

> Re: RGN status

>

> Hi Cecilia, yes I have come across this, and think it is a huge

victory.

> If we had had this standard in force six years ago, we would not

have

>lost the health visiting register and if it had been inforce 12

years ago,

>we would not have lost health visiting education (both occasions

when we

>were outvoted by nurses having a say about health visiting). I will

give

>my interpretation of it to explain, and hope others will chip in

and put

>me right if I am misinterpreting it, because I have not had any

'NMC'

>conversations to pass on.

>

> First, the NMC never takes away a qualification (except when

someone is

>struck off register), but does say that you have to have current

experience

>in an area of registration to maintain that registration as

'current.' If

>you go back to an area where you haven't worked for 20 or 30 years,

you

>need a return to practice course first. The midwifery example is a

good

>one; if you want to go back to general nursing after having worked

in

>midwifery for years, you need a return to practice course first, or

vice

>versa if, after qualifying as a midwife, you have not worked in the

field

>for years. This will now be applied to the NMC3 register as well.

So

>(which is why I think it is great) all those people who qualified

as health

>visitors, never worked in the field or moved out of it years ago,

will no

>longer be able to claim current registration in that field, even

though

>they keep the qualification. Those who have continued, like me, to

>practice by virtue of that qualification, albeit through education

or

>research will be able to keep their registration current. Managers

and

>teachers etc. who cover both nursing and health visiting fields (or

other

>SCPHN) will be able to re-register in both fields. I suspect that

some

>health visitors, especially those who think that nursing is in

everything

>they do, will be able to make a case that things like eg 'nurse

>prescribing' and joint working with practice nurses, screening

clinics,

>sick or special needs children, family planning etc, will also be

able to

>make a convincing case that they have used both qualifications for

the

>required number of hours. They will need to update themselves in

both

>qualifications, of course, which may mean going on study days

relevant to

>nursing, reading 'Nursing Times' etc. for requisite amount of

hours.

>Given that there is a huge amount of joint working, with nurses as

with

>others, I doubt that that will be a problem. Personally, even

though I am

>involved with lots of nursing research and teaching, I doubt that I

would

>want to renew registration in the first part of the register,

because I

>cannot think I would ever want to work in a post where it is

required, but

>the SCPHN one is not. I recognise that for many who are younger

than me,

>and who may wish to return to general nursing at some stage in

their career

>or for many other reasons, it would make sense for them.

>

> It will be much harder for those who have no current interest in

the

>occupation to demonstrate that they have current SCPHN expertise,

so they

>will have to stop having a vote and a say in what happens to our

register.

>it is bad enough that we have lost health visiting register, and

continue

>to have the restrictive (nurse only) entry gate because of all the

nurses

>who want to control our profession; I am pleased that they will no

longer

>have that privilege. I am sure there will be lots who disagree with

me,

>so thanks for raising it. I look forward to discussion and debate!

>

> best wishes

>

> Creagh Cecilia (East Hampshire PCT) wrote:

>

> Has anyone come across the PREP standard that states

> that 'Registrants wishing to renew TWO registrations, eg.

> nursing AND midwifery or nursing AND specialist community

> public health nursing, must have completed at least 450 hours

> in each, making a total of 900 hours.' Does this mean that

> the NMC are taking away the RGN status from Health Visitors.

> Can't seem to get a clear response from the NMC.

> Cecilia Creagh

>

>***************************************************************************

> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the

>intended

> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose,

copy or

> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in

reliance

>on its

> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Please

> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it.

Thank

>you

> for your co-operation.

>

>***************************************************************************

>

July 5, 2006

Sorry; the UKCC rule change was from 1995; the law changed in 2000.

Lots of managers are only jsut catching up with it, and still advertise

for e.g., 'RGN + HV' in job descriptions, which is unduly restrictive.

Cowley wrote:

Hello Ken. Yes, I agree with the other comments that have been

made.