Re: HV registration

May 10, 2008

i had the same thing happen to me apparently its a mistake, i was registered only as HV and not the others. Margaret

HV registration

Please can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all, because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it's an error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements for renewing my registration.The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on Monday, please?

Sent from .

A Smarter Email.

May 10, 2008

I think the mistake is that the NMC is not fit to practice as a regulatory body, so they just list registrants wherever they want. Nothing to do with what their practice is or should be; just some political machinations.On 10 May 2008, at 13:16, holtz wrote: i had the same thing happen to me apparently its a mistake, i was registered only as HV and not the others. Margaret HV registrationPlease can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all, because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it'san error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements for renewing my registration.The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on Monday, please?Sent from . A Smarter Email. sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

May 10, 2008

Hi

The ability to jsut register as an RHV and on the third part of the register only has just been taken away as the DH instructed the NMC that everyone who is a HV must also register as a nurse. This applies also to those who came to HV from midwifery and they have to register as midwives as well which is more serious for them in terms of practice.

The CPHVA and others are challenging it with the NMC as there was no consultation and it is an issue of concern to us all. I am not sure where that is at but others may know.

The NMC say if you are a HV then a lot of your work means you do enough hours etc to register on the 1st and 3rd parts of the register but I think that is really open to challenge as we all know that health visiting is very different to nursing although the DH and the NMC would tell us otherwise!!

So you need to register as both and I would suggest the work you did at New Forest with the community hospitals etc would enable you to do that. You might nit like it but to have a RHV registration at present you need to be a vernal nurse as well - I guess the lapsed for that was the way you completed the form and you need to tell them you are an RHV as well and need to be on both parts.

Hope this helps

Margaret

HV registration

Please can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all, because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it's an error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements for renewing my registration.The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on Monday, please?

May 10, 2008

Hi There has been a lot of discussion about this in the CPHVA journal, and as I understand it, the CPHVA are currently in dispute with NMC. They passed a vote of no confidence in February, as they were unable to get satisfactory answers over the fiasco that says you cannot register only on the SCPHN/RHV part of the register. Last time I spoke to anyone who would know, they had not the courtesy of even an acknowledgement, let alone a reply; but perhaps they have now. The problem was that, after a consultation, a vote and positive decision by the SCPHN committee was made to recognise the fact that many people, like yourself , would regard themselves as practising by virtue of their SCPHN/RHV qualification and registration, but not the other qualifications. They should, therefore, be allowed to only register on that part of the register and 'lapse' their other qualifications, if that reflected their practice. It would mean anyone in that situation would need to complete a return to nursing (or midwifery) programme if they wanted to revert to that practice. I have to say, I would need a lot more than a return to practice course if I were to go back to nursing, so putting my name on that part of the register does not regulate my practice; it depends entirely on my good will and having the responsibility to say that I do not have sufficient knowledge to work in that field, despite being still registered as a nurse. I also resent the idea that anyone who has been out of health visiting practice for decades (or who possibly who never practised in the field after qualification) can claim to be still registered and make decisions on our behalf.However, in their infinite wisdom, last December, the NMC decided out of the blue that they had made a mistake when they made that decision, and that (despite it being a registerable qualification) the SCPHN qualification could not stand alone. They therefore over-ruled and reversed their own earlier decision, the results of the earlier consultation and the protests of the SCPHN committee. They did not hold a further consultation as they had already held one (which supported the original decision). That is what led to the vote of no confidence by CPHVA. It has led to enormous confusion, and in my view, very unsafe regulatory practice. Apparently, it says in their literature that they look at the form you return with your fee to re-register and if, in their view, you have 'made a mistake' they will alter it for you to 'put it right.' They might decide that you really are fit to practice as a nurse, even though you know you are not. Or a midwife. I had got the impression that this was in addition to your re-registration as a SCPHN, but given your experience, , perhaps it is just entirely random. It really is a complete fiasco, and how anyone can believe it has anything to do with protecting the public, I don't know. I suppose you need to contact someone at NMC on Monday, as you need your RHV qualification for your safeguarding research. On 10 May 2008, at 10:48, hwood@... wrote:Please can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all, because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it's an error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements for renewing my registration.The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on Monday, please? sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

May 11, 2008

,

All 3 of mine seem live – RGN/RSCN/RHV-

and I only practice as a HV. I checked with the NMC 2 weeks ago and they

confirmed my registration in all 3 categories was correct. My registration is

due for renewing soon , so I’m waiting to see what happens then,

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of holtz

Sent: 10 May 2008 13:17

Subject: Re: HV

registration

i had the same thing happen to me

apparently its a mistake, i was registered only as HV and not the others.

Margaret

HV registration

Please can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?

I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all,

because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and

it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV

registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.

Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I

think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this

registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it's

an error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm

moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements

for renewing my registration.

The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me

whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on

Monday, please?

Sent from .

A Smarter Email.

May 11, 2008

I did the very same thing, but when i realised i contacted the NMC and they were very helpful and resent the form and sorted it out for me. I would definently keep your nursing qualification as well as HV as we are cradle to grave and never know when the nursing part will be relevant.

Hope this helps

alison

Re: HV registration

i had the same thing happen to me apparently its a mistake, i was registered only as HV and not the others.

Margaret

HV registration

Please can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?

I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all,

because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and

it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV

registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.

Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I

think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this

registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it's

an error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm

moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements

for renewing my registration.

The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me

whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on

Monday, please?

Sent from .

A Smarter Email.

AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour now.

May 11, 2008

Thanks . It helps to know what's happened to others, but it's

not calculated to improve the NMC's image as a competent protection

for the public. It feels wobbly to me.

Good luck with your paperwork!

May 11, 2008

Lordy, so it's almost randomly allocated, irrespective of the area of

current practice? I knew they wouldn't have enough time or

motivation to scrutinise my nice little portfolio of relevant health

visiting learning, but at this rate, I could probably get a midwifery

or mental health qualification thrown in as well!

I might've found a better use for my £76, but I shall keep trying.

May 11, 2008

Grateful thanks to and Margaret for their helpful explanations!

Maybe it isn't just me that's confused, so I will check for faults in

reality first. If I have to choose one registration, it's going to

be health visiting, of course. I'll get on to the NMC first thing

tomorrow. If they insist on throwing in nursing as a freebie, I'll

accept on the basis of previous work with community hospitals issues,

but I must have my relevant registration to practice FIRST!

Back to nursing courses are rarer than hen's teeth and they seemed a

bit naff to me. One had to commission them at substantial costs for

nursing staff who needed this to re-register, but it seemed a token

exercise with little solid learning. Only the practice areas had

much to contribute, taught on the job by the busy ward nurses..

Back to Hv courses seem to have ended since the HVA stopped theirs.

The same seems to apply to post basic update modules for whatever BSc

or MSc degree might be applicable. I suppose we'd just have to do a

specialist module in something clinical and try to figute out how to

apply it.

I agree about the utter failure to protect the public in this area of

practice. But even the UKCC didn't bother much - not a single bit of

specifically relevant Code or practice guidance for health visitors

on the old register.

Did they notice the CPHVA vote, I wonder?

'Not a Nurse'

May 11, 2008

I have followed this discussion with interest over the weekend

At Reading we have a validated programme 'Back to Community Nursing' which includes health visiting . When it was validated , before I arrived it, was for specialist community practitioners .

I have run it for a District Nurse last year

It is organised around a set number of teaching and practice hours together with meeting defined learning needs which are shown in a portfolio

Although it was validated before SCPHN I presume it still stands but would check with the NMC if any one wanted to pursue it .

Recently any interest from would be candidates as evaporated when I have said they would have to find ( and possibly pay) for a placement

I'd be interested to know if there are other similar back to practice courses and if there is any demand for them

Val Thurtle

Re: HV registration

Grateful thanks to and Margaret for their helpful explanations!Maybe it isn't just me that's confused, so I will check for faults in reality first. If I have to choose one registration, it's going to be health visiting, of course. I'll get on to the NMC first thing tomorrow. If they insist on throwing in nursing as a freebie, I'll accept on the basis of previous work with community hospitals issues, but I must have my relevant registration to practice FIRST!Back to nursing courses are rarer than hen's teeth and they seemed a bit naff to me. One had to commission them at substantial costs for nursing staff who needed this to re-register, but it seemed a token exercise with little solid learning. Only the practice areas had much to contribute, taught on the job by the busy ward nurses..Back to Hv courses seem to have ended since the HVA stopped theirs. The same seems to apply to post basic update modules for whatever BSc or MSc degree might be applicable. I suppose we'd just have to do a specialist module in something clinical and try to figute out how to apply it. I agree about the utter failure to protect the public in this area of practice. But even the UKCC didn't bother much - not a single bit of specifically relevant Code or practice guidance for health visitors on the old register.Did they notice the CPHVA vote, I wonder? 'Not a Nurse'

May 12, 2008

Hi

You need to be on either the nursing or midwifery parts of the Register and the RSCPHN (HV) part there is no such thing as RHV anymore, has not been since 2004.

Any problems contact s at the NMC 0207 333 6517

best wishes

Liz

========================================Message Received: May 11 2008, 04:43 PMFrom: " Noy" Cc: Subject: RE: HV registration

,

All 3 of mine seem live â€“ RGN/RSCN/RHV- and I only practice as a HV. I checked with the NMC 2 weeks ago and they confirmed my registration in all 3 categories was correct. My registration is due for renewing soon , so Iâ€™m waiting to see what happens then,

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of holtzSent: 10 May 2008 13:17 Subject: Re: HV registration

i had the same thing happen to me apparently its a mistake, i was registered only as HV and not the others.

Margaret

HV registration

Please can anyone help me with a bit of expert advice?I may have misunderstood the new registration stuff after all, because I've just tried to re-register with NMC for end of May, and it seems that they've put me on the nursing register, whilst my RHV registration is stated to be 'Lapsed'.Since I don't work as a nurse (well, not since August 1981 anyway) I think I only need my RHV to practice now. I really need this registration because I'm working in child safeguarding. I think it's an error, but I don't want to risk my right to practice just as I'm moving into work with CP teams. I do meet the all the requirements for renewing my registration.The NMC is closed for business today. But can anyone advise me whether I can or ought to switch my registration to RHV only on Monday, please?

Sent from . A Smarter Email.

Enter your signature

Liz Plastow

Tel 07792363387

May 12, 2008

That's interesting, Val. I'd really like to have a look at the

course details. Did participants have to fund themselves, or did PCTs

pay fees and costs?

I contacted NMC Call Centre and they said it was an error, checked my

form and confirmed it was completed properly. I'm due for a correct

confirmation of my proper registration in 7-10 days, according to

them. Meantime, they'll confirm it if any employer needs to contact

them. No apology, no explanation. Seemed quite casual about it.

Might be useful to pass on this info if anyone else gets a similar

error in their re-registration though.

May 12, 2008

Hi

Glad you are sorted and interesting about

the refresher from Val.

But for me that is not the point –

we should not need a refresher course unless we want to go back to clinical

practice and I do question how relevant it would be to people like you, me and

indeed as our other knowledge is extensive and likely to be more so than

those teaching us which was the experience of a person I had in a learning set.

When I feel I want to know something about practice or how something is applied

– I asked someone I know or I am working with if I can go out with an HV or

SN and ask queaions and then I find it gets into some sensible perspective.

My concern is the casual and inefficient

way the NMC is treating registration and re registration – it is very

worrying as there may well be people out there with registrations in areas they

should not have.

Margaret

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of hwood@...

Sent: 12 May 2008 11:20

;

e.a.smith@...

Cc: e.a.smith@...

Subject: Re: HV

registration

That's interesting, Val. I'd really like to have a

look at the

course details. Did participants have to fund themselves, or did PCTs

pay fees and costs?

I contacted NMC Call Centre and they said it was an error, checked my

form and confirmed it was completed properly. I'm due for a correct

confirmation of my proper registration in 7-10 days, according to

them. Meantime, they'll confirm it if any employer needs to contact

them. No apology, no explanation. Seemed quite casual about it.

Might be useful to pass on this info if anyone else gets a similar

error in their re-registration though.

May 12, 2008

That's interesting! I have wondered about return to practice and how

to manage it, but have managed to fulfil the undemanding requirements

for continuing registration without difficulty. I hesitate to claim

more than theoretical proficiency in my nursing skills, though having

my role in my local hospice is helpful. I met a colleague of

's, a post doc researcher in wound care nursing, and her

expertise was a whole order of magnitude beyond my generalist

knowledge. Excellent clinical practice can be humbling stuff to

watch, but there's plenty of the other sort too.

As usual, you can see straight to the implications of the re-

registration problems for the 3rd register, Margaret. It's the

obvious result of such an uncertain system. We already know that the

supposed 'audit' of PREP requirements being met was never really

implemented for any part of the register. That brings the whole

process into doubt, because any rule is only as good as you make it.

You can generate guidance & criteria and mandatory requirements by

the bushel, but they're no good unless they're firmly and fairly

applied. If the core registration function is unreliable, this could

cast doubt on the whole process of education and fitness to practice,

which are far more labour intensive. They're made it even harder to

monitor by including such a wide range of practice on this register.

Does this mean that public protection is as fragile and unreliable as

a house of cards? I thought that was the whole raison d'etre for the

legislation behind NMC, GMC, etc. Even protection of title and

professional status is only justified inasmuch as it serves this

purpose. If that goes, then they can bring on the fakes, charlatans

and snake oil merchants.... the market's open for business.

.

May 12, 2008

You've got it one, . Liz's reminder that there is no such thing as a registered health visitor now, is timely as well. The problem is that the whole business feels entirely ad hoc. I would be inclined to suggest, just so they can get an idea of how completely daft their process is, that everyone, when they get their re-registration forms, should write, ring or query exactly how they are supposed to meet the requirements, if they feel they are only practising by virtue of their health visiting qualification. If we all need individual attention, eventually it might get through to them. The trouble with that, is some poor soul would probably fall foul of their tempers and be told they could not re-register at anything, so it would be risky and potentially counter-productive. On the other hand, we might see the muddle as an opportunity for a new renaissance. Since there is no register for health visitors and the SCPHN is proving an inadequate alternative, perhaps we should develop our own requirements and training standards, whilst we have the legal freedom to do that. We could develop a whole new degree or MSc, which really starts out by saying 'What do students need to learn to become competent health visitors?' and work backwards from there to see what needed to be in it, how long it would take etc. It would be interesting to see how quickly the title got protected again, if someone set up a new programme labelled 'Health Visitor Education,' which had nothing to do with the NMC! Aw shucks, it would only get blocked half way through, which would be unfair on the students, so I suppose we shouldn't do it. Let's just go with the flow and leave the public at risk, as that is clearly the government's and the NMC's preferred option. On 12 May 2008, at 15:40, hwood@... wrote:That's interesting! I have wondered about return to practice and how to manage it, but have managed to fulfil the undemanding requirements for continuing registration without difficulty. I hesitate to claim more than theoretical proficiency in my nursing skills, though having my role in my local hospice is helpful. I met a colleague of 's, a post doc researcher in wound care nursing, and her expertise was a whole order of magnitude beyond my generalist knowledge. Excellent clinical practice can be humbling stuff to watch, but there's plenty of the other sort too.As usual, you can see straight to the implications of the re-registration problems for the 3rd register, Margaret. It's the obvious result of such an uncertain system. We already know that the supposed 'audit' of PREP requirements being met was never really implemented for any part of the register. That brings the whole process into doubt, because any rule is only as good as you make it. You can generate guidance & criteria and mandatory requirements by the bushel, but they're no good unless they're firmly and fairly applied. If the core registration function is unreliable, this could cast doubt on the whole process of education and fitness to practice, which are far more labour intensive. They're made it even harder to monitor by including such a wide range of practice on this register.Does this mean that public protection is as fragile and unreliable as a house of cards? I thought that was the whole raison d'etre for the legislation behind NMC, GMC, etc. Even protection of title and professional status is only justified inasmuch as it serves this purpose. If that goes, then they can bring on the fakes, charlatans and snake oil merchants.... the market's open for business.. sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

May 12, 2008

Thanks . Don't want anyone to be hung out to dry over this

issue... but if you ever find a way to restore pukka standards for HV

education and practice, I'll try my best to meet them.

.

May 12, 2008

I am becoming concerned about public protection in this confusing world. In recent weeks both as a practitioner and Union Rep I have had to deal with issues which has potentially placed the public at risk. there is a degree of anarchy in child health services I have knowledge of social workers diagnosing eating disorders, education professionals challenging diagnosis of autism and refusing services to families, nursery nurses advising families about drugs, health care assistants refusing care to vulnerable parents Many of the issues relate to the abdication of NMC responsibility to employers and education institutes as health visitor numbers are slashed to reduce costs.

The NMC and the civil servants who command them seem to have lost contact with the "why" of professional regulation. I have a feeling there is a conflict between the NMC statuary duty to protect the public and the demands of the DOH to deregulate in order to meet DOH expectations of health care delivered by the lowest/cheapest grades. p

The present Kafkaesque state of health visiting is extrordinary and shocking and one of the greatest scandals of this government. ministers publicly endorse health visiting whilst systematically dismantling the profession.

With health visiting the body of knowledge of health visiting is going and it is not being replaced. The effect is visable to those of us on the front line to my surprise is visable to parents also this became apparent to me following the Cameron speech, I was amazed by the number of clients who commented on it positively whilst expressing frustration with the present lack of health visiting.

We always come back to partnership with our clients and groups who represent them and remaining engaged in dialogue about public protection. We rely on your leadership and the CPHVA to be ready to regenerate the profession should the opportunity arise. .

This is not about me as a health visitor but about the protection of my clients and their right to safety in healthcare professionalism after all is about protection of the vulnerable.

mary

E-HVSN

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:14 PM

Subject: Re: HV registration

You've got it one, . Liz's reminder that there is no such thing as a registered health visitor now, is timely as well. The problem is that the whole business feels entirely ad hoc. I would be inclined to suggest, just so they can get an idea of how completely daft their process is, that everyone, when they get their re-registration forms, should write, ring or query exactly how they are supposed to meet the requirements, if they feel they are only practising by virtue of their health visiting qualification. If we all need individual attention, eventually it might get through to them. The trouble with that, is some poor soul would probably fall foul of their tempers and be told they could not re-register at anything, so it would be risky and potentially counter-productive.

On the other hand, we might see the muddle as an opportunity for a new renaissance. Since there is no register for health visitors and the SCPHN is proving an inadequate alternative, perhaps we should develop our own requirements and training standards, whilst we have the legal freedom to do that. We could develop a whole new degree or MSc, which really starts out by saying 'What do students need to learn to become competent health visitors?' and work backwards from there to see what needed to be in it, how long it would take etc. It would be interesting to see how quickly the title got protected again, if someone set up a new programme labelled 'Health Visitor Education,' which had nothing to do with the NMC! Aw shucks, it would only get blocked half way through, which would be unfair on the students, so I suppose we shouldn't do it. Let's just go with the flow and leave the public at risk, as that is clearly the government's and the NMC's preferred option.

On 12 May 2008, at 15:40, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

That's interesting! I have wondered about return to practice and how to manage it, but have managed to fulfil the undemanding requirements for continuing registration without difficulty. I hesitate to claim more than theoretical proficiency in my nursing skills, though having my role in my local hospice is helpful. I met a colleague of 's, a post doc researcher in wound care nursing, and her expertise was a whole order of magnitude beyond my generalist knowledge. Excellent clinical practice can be humbling stuff to watch, but there's plenty of the other sort too.As usual, you can see straight to the implications of the re-registration problems for the 3rd register, Margaret. It's the obvious result of such an uncertain system. We already know that the supposed 'audit' of PREP requirements being met was never really implemented for any part of the register. That brings the whole process into doubt, because any rule is only as good as you make it. You can generate guidance & criteria and mandatory requirements by the bushel, but they're no good unless they're firmly and fairly applied. If the core registration function is unreliable, this could cast doubt on the whole process of education and fitness to practice, which are far more labour intensive. They're made it even harder to monitor by including such a wide range of practice on this register.Does this mean that public protection is as fragile and unreliable as a house of cards? I thought that was the whole raison d'etre for the legislation behind NMC, GMC, etc. Even protection of title and professional status is only justified inasmuch as it serves this purpose. If that goes, then they can bring on the fakes, charlatans and snake oil merchants.... the market's open for business..

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: 11/05/2008 13:08

May 13, 2008

, this says it all. Thank you. But where do we go from here?On 12 May 2008, at 21:40, Daly wrote:I am becoming concerned about public protection in this confusing world. In recent weeks both as a practitioner and Union Rep I have had to deal with issues which has potentially placed the public at risk. there is a degree of anarchy in child health services I have knowledge of social workers diagnosing eating disorders, education professionals challenging diagnosis of autism and refusing services to families, nursery nurses advising families about drugs, health care assistants refusing care to vulnerable parents Many of the issues relate to the abdication of NMC responsibility to employers and education institutes as health visitor numbers are slashed to reduce costs. The NMC and the civil servants who command them seem to have lost contact with the "why" of professional regulation. I have a feeling there is a conflict between the NMC statuary duty to protect the public and the demands of the DOH to deregulate in order to meet DOH expectations of health care delivered by the lowest/cheapest grades. p The present Kafkaesque state of health visiting is extrordinary and shocking and one of the greatest scandals of this government. ministers publicly endorse health visiting whilst systematically dismantling the profession. With health visiting the body of knowledge of health visiting is going and it is not being replaced. The effect is visable to those of us on the front line to my surprise is visable to parents also this became apparent to me following the Cameron speech, I was amazed by the number of clients who commented on it positively whilst expressing frustration with the present lack of health visiting. We always come back to partnership with our clients and groups who represent them and remaining engaged in dialogue about public protection. We rely on your leadership and the CPHVA to be ready to regenerate the profession should the opportunity arise. . This is not about me as a health visitor but about the protection of my clients and their right to safety in healthcare professionalism after all is about protection of the vulnerable. mary E-HVSN Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:14 PMSubject: Re: HV registrationYou've got it one, . Liz's reminder that there is no such thing as a registered health visitor now, is timely as well. The problem is that the whole business feels entirely ad hoc. I would be inclined to suggest, just so they can get an idea of how completely daft their process is, that everyone, when they get their re-registration forms, should write, ring or query exactly how they are supposed to meet the requirements, if they feel they are only practising by virtue of their health visiting qualification. If we all need individual attention, eventually it might get through to them. The trouble with that, is some poor soul would probably fall foul of their tempers and be told they could not re-register at anything, so it would be risky and potentially counter-productive. On the other hand, we might see the muddle as an opportunity for a new renaissance. Since there is no register for health visitors and the SCPHN is proving an inadequate alternative, perhaps we should develop our own requirements and training standards, whilst we have the legal freedom to do that. We could develop a whole new degree or MSc, which really starts out by saying 'What do students need to learn to become competent health visitors?' and work backwards from there to see what needed to be in it, how long it would take etc. It would be interesting to see how quickly the title got protected again, if someone set up a new programme labelled 'Health Visitor Education,' which had nothing to do with the NMC! Aw shucks, it would only get blocked half way through, which would be unfair on the students, so I suppose we shouldn't do it. Let's just go with the flow and leave the public at risk, as that is clearly the government's and the NMC's preferred option. On 12 May 2008, at 15:40, hwood@....co.uk wrote:That's interesting! I have wondered about return to practice and how to manage it, but have managed to fulfil the undemanding requirements for continuing registration without difficulty. I hesitate to claim more than theoretical proficiency in my nursing skills, though having my role in my local hospice is helpful. I met a colleague of 's, a post doc researcher in wound care nursing, and her expertise was a whole order of magnitude beyond my generalist knowledge. Excellent clinical practice can be humbling stuff to watch, but there's plenty of the other sort too.As usual, you can see straight to the implications of the re-registration problems for the 3rd register, Margaret. It's the obvious result of such an uncertain system. We already know that the supposed 'audit' of PREP requirements being met was never really implemented for any part of the register. That brings the whole process into doubt, because any rule is only as good as you make it. You can generate guidance & criteria and mandatory requirements by the bushel, but they're no good unless they're firmly and fairly applied. If the core registration function is unreliable, this could cast doubt on the whole process of education and fitness to practice, which are far more labour intensive. They're made it even harder to monitor by including such a wide range of practice on this register.Does this mean that public protection is as fragile and unreliable as a house of cards? I thought that was the whole raison d'etre for the legislation behind NMC, GMC, etc. Even protection of title and professional status is only justified inasmuch as it serves this purpose. If that goes, then they can bring on the fakes, charlatans and snake oil merchants.... the market's open for business..sarahcowley183btinternet http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COnNo virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: 11/05/2008 13:08 sarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

May 13, 2008

I think we need to to take individual and collective responsibility for public protection in addition to and possibly outside the NMC framework. Senate was set up originally to provide a forum for debate about the profession maybe senate should now host a debate about "safe" health visiting in partnership with client groups in the absence of a regulatory framework.We are a profession without a regulatory instruments in a state of some chaos. It is now possible for a nurse with no formal knowledge of health visiting to present herself at the home of a client as the health visiting service and undertake work for which she may have no agreed competency. This is wholly wrong and dishonest employers concur because the nurse is cheaper and the NMC have ceded responsibility to the employer. In other words we need to fill the leadership vacuum a formalise what we are doing every day set standards to protect our client groups.

rom: Cowley

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:42 PM

Subject: Re: HV registration

, this says it all. Thank you. But where do we go from here?

On 12 May 2008, at 21:40, Daly wrote:

I am becoming concerned about public protection in this confusing world. In recent weeks both as a practitioner and Union Rep I have had to deal with issues which has potentially placed the public at risk. there is a degree of anarchy in child health services I have knowledge of social workers diagnosing eating disorders, education professionals challenging diagnosis of autism and refusing services to families, nursery nurses advising families about drugs, health care assistants refusing care to vulnerable parents Many of the issues relate to the abdication of NMC responsibility to employers and education institutes as health visitor numbers are slashed to reduce costs.

The NMC and the civil servants who command them seem to have lost contact with the "why" of professional regulation. I have a feeling there is a conflict between the NMC statuary duty to protect the public and the demands of the DOH to deregulate in order to meet DOH expectations of health care delivered by the lowest/cheapest grades. p

The present Kafkaesque state of health visiting is extrordinary and shocking and one of the greatest scandals of this government. ministers publicly endorse health visiting whilst systematically dismantling the profession.

With health visiting the body of knowledge of health visiting is going and it is not being replaced. The effect is visable to those of us on the front line to my surprise is visable to parents also this became apparent to me following the Cameron speech, I was amazed by the number of clients who commented on it positively whilst expressing frustration with the present lack of health visiting.

We always come back to partnership with our clients and groups who represent them and remaining engaged in dialogue about public protection. We rely on your leadership and the CPHVA to be ready to regenerate the profession should the opportunity arise. .

This is not about me as a health visitor but about the protection of my clients and their right to safety in healthcare professionalism after all is about protection of the vulnerable.

mary

E-HVSN

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:14 PM

Subject: Re: HV registration

You've got it one, . Liz's reminder that there is no such thing as a registered health visitor now, is timely as well. The problem is that the whole business feels entirely ad hoc. I would be inclined to suggest, just so they can get an idea of how completely daft their process is, that everyone, when they get their re-registration forms, should write, ring or query exactly how they are supposed to meet the requirements, if they feel they are only practising by virtue of their health visiting qualification. If we all need individual attention, eventually it might get through to them. The trouble with that, is some poor soul would probably fall foul of their tempers and be told they could not re-register at anything, so it would be risky and potentially counter-productive.

On the other hand, we might see the muddle as an opportunity for a new renaissance. Since there is no register for health visitors and the SCPHN is proving an inadequate alternative, perhaps we should develop our own requirements and training standards, whilst we have the legal freedom to do that. We could develop a whole new degree or MSc, which really starts out by saying 'What do students need to learn to become competent health visitors?' and work backwards from there to see what needed to be in it, how long it would take etc. It would be interesting to see how quickly the title got protected again, if someone set up a new programme labelled 'Health Visitor Education,' which had nothing to do with the NMC! Aw shucks, it would only get blocked half way through, which would be unfair on the students, so I suppose we shouldn't do it. Let's just go with the flow and leave the public at risk, as that is clearly the government's and the NMC's preferred option.

On 12 May 2008, at 15:40, hwood@....co.uk wrote:

That's interesting! I have wondered about return to practice and how to manage it, but have managed to fulfil the undemanding requirements for continuing registration without difficulty. I hesitate to claim more than theoretical proficiency in my nursing skills, though having my role in my local hospice is helpful. I met a colleague of 's, a post doc researcher in wound care nursing, and her expertise was a whole order of magnitude beyond my generalist knowledge. Excellent clinical practice can be humbling stuff to watch, but there's plenty of the other sort too.As usual, you can see straight to the implications of the re-registration problems for the 3rd register, Margaret. It's the obvious result of such an uncertain system. We already know that the supposed 'audit' of PREP requirements being met was never really implemented for any part of the register. That brings the whole process into doubt, because any rule is only as good as you make it. You can generate guidance & criteria and mandatory requirements by the bushel, but they're no good unless they're firmly and fairly applied. If the core registration function is unreliable, this could cast doubt on the whole process of education and fitness to practice, which are far more labour intensive. They're made it even harder to monitor by including such a wide range of practice on this register.Does this mean that public protection is as fragile and unreliable as a house of cards? I thought that was the whole raison d'etre for the legislation behind NMC, GMC, etc. Even protection of title and professional status is only justified inasmuch as it serves this purpose. If that goes, then they can bring on the fakes, charlatans and snake oil merchants.... the market's open for business..

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date: 11/05/2008 13:08

sarahcowley183btinternet

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1429 - Release Date: 12/05/2008 18:14

May 13, 2008

You're right about the risks. These can apply to any group of staff

who're employed in practice whilst lacking the relevant skills and

knowledge to practice health visiting, whether they been RNs, NNEBs,

HCSWs, FHNs or badly trained SCPH nurses.

I've seen cases where it has been all too clear what goes wrong for

the public.

We can't MAKE anyone listen, but that's no reason not to tell it like

it is.

< >

From: " Daly " <m_daly@...>

Date sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 21:13:55 +0100

Subject: Re: HV registration

Send reply to:

I think we need to to takeindividual and collective responsibility

for public protection in addition to and possibly outsidethe NMC

framework. Senate was set up originally to provide a forum for debate

about the profession maybesenate should nowhost a debate about

" safe " health visiting in partnership with client groups in the

absence of a regulatory framework.We are a profession without a

regulatoryinstruments in a state of some chaos.It is now possible

for a nurse with no formal knowledge ofhealth visiting to present

herselfat the home of a client as the health visiting service and

undertake work for which she may have no agreed competency. This is

wholly wrong and dishonest employersconcur because the nurse is

cheaper and the NMC have ceded responsibility to the employer.In

other words we need to fill the leadership vacuuma formalise

what we are doing every dayset standardsto protect our client

groups.

rom: Cowley

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:42 PM

Subject: Re: HV registration

, this says it all. Thank you. But where do we go from here?

On 12 May 2008, at 21:40, Daly wrote:

I am becoming concerned about public protection in this confusing

world.In recent weeks both as a practitioner and Union Rep I have

had to deal with issues which has potentially placed the public at

risk. there is a degree of anarchy in child health services I have

knowledge of social workers diagnosing eating disorders, education

professionals challenging diagnosis of autism and refusing services

to families, nursery nurses advising families about drugs, health

care assistants refusing care to vulnerable parentsMany of the

issues relate tothe abdication of NMC responsibility to employers

and education institutes as health visitor numbers are slashed to

reduce costs.

The NMC and the civil servants who command them seem to havelost

contact with the " why " of professional regulation. I have a feeling

there is a conflict between the NMC statuary duty to protect the

public and the demands of the DOH to deregulate in order to meet DOH

expectations of health care delivered by the lowest/cheapest

grades.p

The present Kafkaesque state of health visitingis extrordinary and

shockingand one of the greatest scandalsof this government.

ministerspublicly endorse health visiting whilst systematically

dismantling the profession.

Withhealth visiting the body of knowledge of health visiting is

going and it is not being replaced. The effect is visable to those of

us on the front lineto my surprise is visable to parents also this

became apparent to me following the Cameron speech,I was

amazed by the number ofclients whocommented on it positivelywhilst

expressing frustration with the present lack of health visiting.

We always come back to partnership with our clients and groups who

represent them and remaining engaged in dialogue about public

protection. We rely on your leadership and the CPHVAto be

ready to regenerate the profession should the opportunity arise..

This is not about me as a health visitor but about the protection of

my clients and their right tosafety in healthcareprofessionalism

after all is about protection of the vulnerable.

mary

E-HVSNgroups (DOT) com

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:14 PM

Subject: Re: HV registration

You've got it one, . Liz's reminder that there is no such

thing as a registered health visitor now, is timely as well. The

problem is that the whole business feels entirely ad hoc. I would be

inclined to suggest, just so they can get an idea of how completely

daft their process is, thateveryone, when they get their re-

registration forms, should write, ring or query exactly how they are

supposed to meet the requirements, if they feel they are only

practising by virtue of their health visiting qualification.If we

all need individual attention, eventually it might get through to

them. The trouble with that, is some poor soul would probably fall

foul of their tempers and be told they could not re-register at

anything, so it would be risky and potentially counter-productive.

On the other hand, we might see the muddle as an opportunity for a

new renaissance. Since there is no register for health visitors and

the SCPHN is proving an inadequate alternative, perhaps we should

develop our own requirements and training standards, whilst we have

the legal freedom to do that. We could develop a whole new degree or

MSc, which really starts out by saying 'What do students need to

learn to become competent health visitors?' and work backwards from

there to see what needed to be in it, how long it would take etc. It

would be interesting to see how quickly the title got protected

again, if someone set up a new programme labelled 'Health Visitor

Education,' which had nothing to do with the NMC! Aw shucks, it

would only get blocked half way through, whichwould be unfair on the

students,so I suppose we shouldn't do it. Let's just go with the

flow and leave the public at risk, as that is clearly the

government's and the NMC's preferred option.

On 12 May 2008, at 15:40, hwood@.... co.uk wrote: