Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Thanks for this , I'll be interested to see what figures come up for school nursing. We did have some comprehensive ones last Sept.- 2409 equating to approx 1600 wte. The RCN school nursing survey (availble form RCN website) also has interesting stats. Barbara workforce stats There is a new user-friendly webpage for government stats/information, at http://www.hscic.nhs.uk/pubs. They have just published workforce statistics up to September 2005. What a surprise (!) there are fewer health visitors, down to 9,809 (whole time equivalent) from 10,197 in 2004. This is the lowest figure since 1994, when it was 9,680. Headcount numbers are also down, from 13,303 in 2004 to 12,818 in 2005. The school nursing figures are all over the place, cropping up in various different guises (community matrons, managers, 'other nurses' etc); will have a look at them, and the ages, and post further information when I have done it. At least all those hospital nurses facing cuts now did see a rise in numbers before running into the buffers, but the expansion never reached health visiting. best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 The DH ones are slightly more encouraging, Barbara, showing 1,914 whole time equivalent, and 2,867 total headcount for school nurses, including 20 wte (23 hc) managers, 4 wte/hc community matrons, 665 wte (943 hc) qualified school nurses and the rest being 1st and 2nd level nurses. These figures are up from a base in 2003 of 797wte, 1,188 hc in 2003. We thought at the time that those figures (first ever collected) were too low for what was 'out there', but that is a pretty phenomenal increase. Just shows what can happen when the DH make something a priority. The challenge will be to keep it/keep it growing, when everything else is being cut back, because it is still a very low number compared to what is needed. Congratulations to CPHVA in getting out a press release about the shrinking health visitor numbers, which was picked up by the Guardian, I believe. Barbara -Todd wrote: >Thanks for this , I'll be interested to see what figures come up for >school nursing. We did have some comprehensive ones last Sept.- 2409 >equating to approx 1600 wte. The RCN school nursing survey (availble form >RCN website) also has interesting stats. >Barbara > > workforce stats > > >There is a new user-friendly webpage for government stats/information, >at http://www.hscic.nhs.uk/pubs. > >They have just published workforce statistics up to September 2005. >What a surprise (!) there are fewer health visitors, down to 9,809 >(whole time equivalent) from 10,197 in 2004. This is the lowest figure >since 1994, when it was 9,680. Headcount numbers are also down, from >13,303 in 2004 to 12,818 in 2005. > >The school nursing figures are all over the place, cropping up in >various different guises (community matrons, managers, 'other nurses' >etc); will have a look at them, and the ages, and post further >information when I have done it. > >At least all those hospital nurses facing cuts now did see a rise in >numbers before running into the buffers, but the expansion never >reached health visiting. > >best wishes > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 The official DH workforce stats for September 2006 were published yesterday. They record 9,376 health visitors (WTE) and 12,034 (headcount). This is a drop of 433 WTE and 784 individual health visitors on the 2005 figures of 9809 and 12984 respectively. They are also somewhat higher than the 9000 reported to the Family and Parenting Institute survey, which recorded numbers in December 2006. Interestingly, the FPI figures were broken down by separate PCTs, and the common response to that seems to have been 'that is about right; actually the numbers are a bit lower now.' So it does seem that numbers have taken a real 'nosedive.' The DH line is that HV numbers are down, because the number of other staff (community staff nurses, nursery nurses etc) has gone up, but because all community staff are collated together it is not possible to check that. In contrast, the school nursing figures have full details, and are bucking the trend, with a satisfying increase in establishment; 1129 qualified SNs in 2006, against 943 in 2005. 2006 total school nursing workforce (including managers [35] consultants [2] and modern matrons [4]) is 2053 (WTE) and 2968 (headcount) against 2005 figures of 1914 (WTE) and 2867 (headcount). That is the difference between being a service that is 'officially supported' and one that is not, I guess. Of course, we need to remember both the very low base from school nursing has started (and remains, despite increase), and the fact that they will need even more in future, given the increase in problems that will surface during school years, having not been dealt with at pre-school age if the health visiting service disappears. Full figures available on the Information Centre website, http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubsbest wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 Message from Helen DonovanSubject: Specialist Practice trainingDear Senate MembersWe are asking for your views and thoughts about the future training for specialist practice this includes HV SN and community Nursing.I gather some SHA's are planning to continue with salary support over the next year but this will not be the case in the East of England Strategic Health Authority (SHA) where there will be no new salary support to sponsor Specialist Practice programmes.We have been asked by the PCT to put a proposal together looking at the options from the Trusts point of view (working with colleagues and the Universities) around the possibility of a Specialist Practitioner modular programme which would allow staff (band 5/6 ) already employed and based within a team to do the course over 2 or 3 years (3 years being the maximum time under current NMC regulations) in a modular way and being released from practice to attend Uni and practice. We would appreciate your views and if you know of any similar models nationally.RegardsHelen DonovanOn 27 Apr 2007, at 13:09, Cowley wrote:The official DH workforce stats for September 2006 were published yesterday. They record 9,376 health visitors (WTE) and 12,034 (headcount). This is a drop of 433 WTE and 784 individual health visitors on the 2005 figures of 9809 and 12984 respectively. They are also somewhat higher than the 9000 reported to the Family and Parenting Institute survey, which recorded numbers in December 2006. Interestingly, the FPI figures were broken down by separate PCTs, and the common response to that seems to have been 'that is about right; actually the numbers are a bit lower now.' So it does seem that numbers have taken a real 'nosedive.' The DH line is that HV numbers are down, because the number of other staff (community staff nurses, nursery nurses etc) has gone up, but because all community staff are collated together it is not possible to check that.In contrast, the school nursing figures have full details, and are bucking the trend, with a satisfying increase in establishment; 1129 qualified SNs in 2006, against 943 in 2005. 2006 total school nursing workforce (including managers [35] consultants [2] and modern matrons [4]) is 2053 (WTE) and 2968 (headcount) against 2005 figures of 1914 (WTE) and 2867 (headcount). That is the difference between being a service that is 'officially supported' and one that is not, I guess. Of course, we need to remember both the very low base from school nursing has started (and remains, despite increase), and the fact that they will need even more in future, given the increase in problems that will surface during school years, having not been dealt with at pre-school age if the health visiting service disappears. Full figures available on the Information Centre website, http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubsbest wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 Cowley wrote: > > Message from Helen Donovan > > > *Subject: **Specialist Practice training* > > > Dear Senate Members > > We are asking for your views and thoughts about the future training > for specialist practice this includes HV SN and community Nursing. > > I gather some SHA's are planning to continue with salary support over > the next year but this will not be the case in the East of England > Strategic Health Authority (SHA) where there will be no new salary > support to sponsor Specialist Practice programmes. > > We have been asked by the PCT to put a proposal together looking at > the options from the Trusts point of view (working with colleagues and > the Universities) around the possibility of a Specialist Practitioner > modular programme which would allow staff (band 5/6 ) already employed > and based within a team to do the course over 2 or 3 years (3 years > being the maximum time under current NMC regulations) in a modular way > and being released from practice to attend Uni and practice. > > We would appreciate your views and if you know of any similar models > nationally. > > Regards > > > > Helen Donovan > > > On 27 Apr 2007, at 13:09, Cowley wrote: > >> The official DH workforce stats for September 2006 were published >> yesterday. They record 9,376 health visitors (WTE) and 12,034 >> (headcount). This is a drop of 433 WTE and 784 individual health >> visitors on the 2005 figures of 9809 and 12984 respectively. They >> are also somewhat higher than the 9000 reported to the Family and >> Parenting Institute survey, which recorded numbers in December 2006. >> Interestingly, the FPI figures were broken down by separate PCTs, and >> the common response to that seems to have been 'that is about right; >> actually the numbers are a bit lower now.' So it does seem that >> numbers have taken a real 'nosedive.' The DH line is that HV numbers >> are down, because the number of other staff (community staff nurses, >> nursery nurses etc) has gone up, but because all community staff are >> collated together it is not possible to check that. >> >> >> In contrast, the school nursing figures have full details, and are >> bucking the trend, with a satisfying increase in establishment; 1129 >> qualified SNs in 2006, against 943 in 2005. 2006 total school >> nursing workforce (including managers [35] consultants [2] and modern >> matrons [4]) is 2053 (WTE) and 2968 (headcount) against 2005 figures >> of 1914 (WTE) and 2867 (headcount). That is the difference between >> being a service that is 'officially supported' and one that is not, I >> guess. >> >> Of course, we need to remember both the very low base from school >> nursing has started (and remains, despite increase), and the fact >> that they will need even more in future, given the increase in >> problems that will surface during school years, having not been dealt >> with at pre-school age if the health visiting service disappears. >> >> Full figures available on the Information Centre >> website, http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs <http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs> >> >> best wishes >> >> >> > > Hi Helen, Yes in Oxford we are planning a much more viable part time route that would allow practitioners to step on and off as requred. We have always had a part time route but most PCTs have not really wanted students to access this for their own reasons and really there were gaps between the practice based modules which was manageable as long as students were able to access practice in between but was not really ideal from our point of view. According to an NMC circular students studying part time have 208 weeks to complete their programme, which is actually 4 years but really I personally think a 2 year part time route is much more helpful in terms of continuity and our 2 year part time route is designed for students already in practice and we have a 3 year version too. In my mind the 4 years really is for students who are unwell or have maternity leave and I wouldn't want students to plan for a programme as long as that.. As says the supernumaracy status is an issue, and we have a partime school nurse at the moment who is spending some time in the PCT and the rest in the indeendent school where she works. It is really difficult for her to be in student mode during most of her time ..in her employing school, as she can be working on her own. However she has seemed to see the need for some change there and has gained a lot from her PCT placement and her CPT's supervision. The NMC Standards do state that although students should be supernumate but if not their " supernumeracy staus is maintained as far as possible during the period of practice placements and that, at the very least, appropriate learning opportunities are available " .This obviously involves careful auditing but it can still be an issue if the sponsoring or seconding body is committed to educating students but issues to do with staffing undermine this at times either in terms of the student's ability to be a student, or the Practice Teacher's ability to devote teaching, supervision or assessment time. I think that our local PCTs will want to " grow their own " much more with staff nurses accessing the programme while still being employed and some students might prefer the job security of this secondment rather than sponsorship. However diversity of experience and well audited placements are essential, preferably in a different location to where they have been working , certainly for some of the time. All of this invlvee major change for most University programmes. I also agree that it would be so good if we could have direct entry students, who do not necessarily have a nursing or midwifery background as long as they have other transferable knowledge and skills but I think the proposed model makes this less, not more, likely. It also makes it very difficult for students without community experience to enter the programmes, and in my experience they can be excellent too. Our model is encouraging a Postgraduate Diploma, rather than an undergraduate programme, though we do run both. For the PgDips they could go on to do a triple dissertation, funded separately and achieve an MSc in Public Health Nursing. Our District Nursing provision is still possible through the Specialist Practitioner route and we are in the process of being revalidated for DN, PN, CCN, CMH and CLD at undergraduate or postgraduate level. We also have the Student Designed Award route that some PCTs would prefer which allows students to study particular modules to achieve an award named by them around their areas of interest. This could be around Case Management or Community Matron themes, but in the case of Community Matron education they would need to cover all the appropriate domains. I suppose really that we just trying to meet the needs of various PCTs in a variety of ways without compromising educational standards or practice requirements., but it is a difficult line to tread and we are trying to be as flexible as possible whilst still maintaining and supporting these important issues. These are definitely difficult times! -- Chambers Leader of the Specialist Community Public Health Nursing Programme (Health Visiting and School Nursing) School of Health and Social Care Oxford s University Phone: 07973 617482 e-mail: cachambers@... 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.