RE: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

[Guest guest]

, I agree about disliking ‘motivating clients’ as a catch phrase. It smacks of the ‘empty vessel’ philosophy for a way of learning that assumes both client ignorance and willingness to change are in place.As an alternative, in my thesis about evaluating health visitors interpersonal skills to promote health, I found a core concept of ‘purposive befriending’. The strength of this lay partly in promoting positive feelings through helping talk, jointly making assessments, forming strategies, information giving and praising achievements. The process involved included time to stay with a client and following up proposed strategies through continuing visits. Further, clients were able to attribute outcomes of change to the health visitor’s intervention through evaluative comments which demonstrated an analytical judgement of their learning process.It’s a complex business and maybe the semantics are not that important but we all use jargon and maybe need to claim for health visiting something that reflects its roots –‘purposive’ indicating the professional drive to assess need and ‘befriending’ to encapsulate empathy and ongoing action and support. Ten years ago the concept of ‘purposive befriending’ did not go down well as it was perceived as having connotations of befriending in the volunteer sense and therefore cost neutral – so why have health visitors? Has there been a climate change from enough new understanding to use ‘purposive befriending’ to describe professional interventions? Or do we still need jargon reflecting a medical model of filling empty vessels? From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CowleySent: 29 August 2011 09:10 Subject: Re: two new education documents Thanks , that is a very good point. Am I alone in disliking the notion of a worker 'motivating' clients? I know the theory and practice of 'motivational interviewing' is very positive and widely research courtesy of Olds and FNP, but I can't shake the image created by the term: somehow there is an inert, completely 'unmotivated' mother, until this miracle worker comes along and drops in some magic formula available only to professionals, then bingo, she suddenly springs into life. It reminds me of all the debates we used to have about 'empowerment' until it became clear that we can only work in ways that enable empowerment, and as you rightly point out, that generally involves working to change the environment as well the supporting the individual to change. best wishes On 28 Aug 2011, at 14:14, Malone, wrote:Thank you very much for high lighting this interesting and timely document.Like you I support the overall thrust of the general education guidance. I think the orientation, which I interpret as being rather psychological and individualistic in focus (e.g emphasis on motivational work for lifestyle change) is interesting. It would be good to see how colleagues from practice, especially Practice Teachers and managers who are informing commissioners, feel. Best wishes________________________________________From: [ ] On Behalf Of Cowley [sarahcowley183@...]Sent: 26 August 2011 18:29 Subject: two new education documents [2 Attachments]The Department of Health have released two new documents about health visitor education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to Practice programmes. Attached, or download fromhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129682andhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129697I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples of face-to-face client contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented, too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky, will be interested in others' viewsbest wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Thanks Margaret. I wouldn't like anyone to think that the Family Partnership Model is only workable with FNP: it was operating in many places long before that was brought over, and has its own very impressive evidence base. But I do agree with you about communication skills. One of the things I picked up from the DH educational document is that they seem to have a very rosy picture of what is learned in pre-registration education (and a comparatively negative/simplistic view of what is learnt in midwifery programmes). The bottom line is (IMHO as they say!) that we need a root and branch renewal of heath visitor education, and a realistic expectation of post-registration continuing professional development. Perhaps that is on its way and this is the first step towards recognising the need.best wishesOn 29 Aug 2011, at 16:55, Margaret Buttigieg wrote: Dear and all From the work my colleagues and I have been doing around health visiting and school nursing leadership, we are aware that a few of SHAs and also trusts are beginning to ensure all the HV and SN staff have been trained in motivational interviewing and that is why I found the discussion so useful as for me one of the things I have been concerned about with health visitors in particular is their poor interpersonal skills and the fact that they are no longer always seen as a need within a HV education programme. Work a colleague has been doing in the acute services with qualified nurses shows how poor they are at talking to patients and if you cannot talk to families and clients - then how can you do health visiting. Also in using supervision based on the Solihull Approach alongside the HV and Sn leadership programmes we have seen a major change in the way the participants function and challenge as the on going evaluation shows. There are other applications of the Solihull approach not just with early intervention for specific problems and the model being used in the West Midlands through a clinical psychology colleague is much less time consuming than the FNP model which would just not be feasible in normal HV and SN practice. The supervision approach we have been using is empowering for the staff which then enables them to empower and work better with their clients - I am not so sure that is always happening with the FNP supervision model as there is reams of paperwork in their supervision process and it would seem much more control from the supervisor. If anyone would like a copy of the evaluation of the HV and SN supervision and the course please let me know. Margaret two new education documents [2 Attachments]The Department of Health have released two new documents about health visitor education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to Practice programmes. Attached, or download fromhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129682andhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129697I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples of face-to-face client contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented, too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky, will be interested in others' viewsbest wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowley sarahcowley183@... http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowley sarahcowley183@... http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi Margaret, and Debbie

Can I just clear up any misunderstandings about the Family Partnership Model (FPM). I was involved in writing about and training the model for about eight years.

It is a way of conceptualising the relationship and process of helping. Both Hilton and Crispin Day were involved with Family Nurse Partnership,(FNP) with the training and carrying out some of the supervision. However, although they had input into the training, it was fairly minimal in contrast to the whole training the family nurses received.

The two approaches FPM and FNP are not the same. FNP does have a supervision system of its own as does FPM. The FPM supervision system is not overloaded with paperwork but there is a very helpful reflective booklet to help supervisees prepare for their sessions. The FPM system of supervision uses the same model as practitioners use with clients so that there is consistency of approach across an organisation.

I hope this clarifies things further in case there is confusion.

It has certainly been my experience that health visitors benefit greatly from training in the interpersonal relational skills needed to formulate partnerships with parents. When this is supported and underpinned by a sound system of supervision from supervisors trained in the model, who are not necessarily clinical psychologists from CAMHS, the outcomes for families are very positive.

Best wishes,

two new education documents [2 Attachments]The Department of Health have released two new documents about health visitor education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to Practice programmes. Attached, or download fromhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129682andhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129697I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples of face-to-face client contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented, too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky, will be interested in others' viewsbest wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6419 (20110829) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

, this is very helpful, thank you.On 30 Aug 2011, at 11:16, Bidmead wrote:Hi Margaret, and Debbie Can I just clear up any misunderstandings about the Family Partnership Model (FPM). I was involved in writing about and training the model for about eight years. It is a way of conceptualising the relationship and process of helping. Both Hilton and Crispin Day were involved with Family Nurse Partnership,(FNP) with the training and carrying out some of the supervision. However, although they had input into the training, it was fairly minimal in contrast to the whole training the family nurses received. The two approaches FPM and FNP are not the same. FNP does have a supervision system of its own as does FPM. The FPM supervision system is not overloaded with paperwork but there is a very helpful reflective booklet to help supervisees prepare for their sessions. The FPM system of supervision uses the same model as practitioners use with clients so that there is consistency of approach across an organisation. I hope this clarifies things further in case there is confusion. It has certainly been my experience that health visitors benefit greatly from training in the interpersonal relational skills needed to formulate partnerships with parents. When this is supported and underpinned by a sound system of supervision from supervisors trained in the model, who are not necessarily clinical psychologists from CAMHS, the outcomes for families are very positive. Best wishes, two new education documents [2 Attachments]The Department of Health have released two new documents about health visitor education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to Practice programmes. Attached, or download fromhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129682andhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129697I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples of face-to-face client contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented, too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky, will be interested in others' viewsbest wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6419 (20110829) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com Cowleysarahcowley183@...http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Dear Margaret

I would like a copy of the HV & SN supervision evaluation & course

Nailard

Community health lecturer

Seacole Building

Brunel University

E mail

hilary.nailard@...<mailto:hilary.nailard@...><mailto:hilary.na\

ilard@...>

________________________________

From: [ ] On Behalf Of

Margaret Buttigieg [margaret@...]

Sent: 29 August 2011 16:55

Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

Dear and all

From the work my colleagues and I have been doing around health visiting and

school nursing leadership, we are aware that a few of SHAs and also trusts are

beginning to ensure all the HV and SN staff have been trained in motivational

interviewing and that is why I found the discussion so useful as for me one of

the things I have been concerned about with health visitors in particular is

their poor interpersonal skills and the fact that they are no longer always seen

as a need within a HV education programme. Work a colleague has been doing in

the acute services with qualified nurses shows how poor they are at talking to

patients and if you cannot talk to families and clients - then how can you do

health visiting.

Also in using supervision based on the Solihull Approach alongside the HV and

Sn leadership programmes we have seen a major change in the way the

participants function and challenge as the on going evaluation shows. There are

other applications of the Solihull approach not just with early intervention for

specific problems and the model being used in the West Midlands through a

clinical psychology colleague is much less time consuming than the FNP model

which would just not be feasible in normal HV and SN practice. The supervision

approach we have been using is empowering for the staff which then enables them

to empower and work better with their clients - I am not so sure that is always

happening with the FNP supervision model as there is reams of paperwork in their

supervision process and it would seem much more control from the supervisor.

If anyone would like a copy of the evaluation of the HV and SN supervision and

the course please let me know.

Margaret

two new education documents [2 Attachments]

The Department of Health have released two new documents about health visitor

education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to

Practice programmes. Attached, or download from

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolic\

yAndGuidance/DH_129682

and

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolic\

yAndGuidance/DH_129697

I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose

contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples

of face-to-face client contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning

outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this

document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as

I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying

for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.

I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented,

too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education

does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky,

will be interested in others' views

best wishes

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183%40btinternet.com><mailto:sar\

ahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183%40btinternet.com>>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Hi

Thank you for sharing this. I remember buying your book 'Working in partnership with parents: The parent advisor model' when I did my HV training in 2002. I have tried to apply the theory and read what I could regarding the FPM since but have not had the privilage (or funding) to benefit from the actual training. I agree, whatever the model, it is the opportunity for good supervision that will help skills to be developed.

Best wishes

Debbie

From: Bidmead <christine@...> Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2011 11:16:24Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

Hi Margaret, and Debbie

Can I just clear up any misunderstandings about the Family Partnership Model (FPM). I was involved in writing about and training the model for about eight years.

It is a way of conceptualising the relationship and process of helping. Both Hilton and Crispin Day were involved with Family Nurse Partnership,(FNP) with the training and carrying out some of the supervision. However, although they had input into the training, it was fairly minimal in contrast to the whole training the family nurses received.

The two approaches FPM and FNP are not the same. FNP does have a supervision system of its own as does FPM. The FPM supervision system is not overloaded with paperwork but there is a very helpful reflective booklet to help supervisees prepare for their sessions. The FPM system of supervision uses the same model as practitioners use with clients so that there is consistency of approach across an organisation.

I hope this clarifies things further in case there is confusion.

It has certainly been my experience that health visitors benefit greatly from training in the interpersonal relational skills needed to formulate partnerships with parents. When this is supported and underpinned by a sound system of supervision from supervisors trained in the model, who are not necessarily clinical psychologists from CAMHS, the outcomes for families are very positive.

Best wishes,

two new education documents [2 Attachments]The Department of Health have released two new documents about health

visitor education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to Practice programmes. Attached, or download fromhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129682andhttp://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_129697I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples of face-to-face client

contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented, too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky, will be interested in others' viewsbest wishes Cowleysarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6419 (20110829) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Margaret,

I hope you are well, good to hear the course is going well. Please could you

forward a copy of the HV and SN supervision and the course details.

As I think I mentioned to you and Sue at the leadership sessions I attended with

you both last year. I am looking at leadership and health visiting and how

health visitors make sense of leadership for my Doctorate. So any feedback from

the work that you are doing would be really useful.

Could I ask if anybody on SENATE knows of any key work done in health visiting

and leadership that has or is curently being undertaken could they advise. I am

struggling to find much work in this area.

Many thanks

________________________________

From: [ ] On Behalf Of

Margaret Buttigieg [margaret@...]

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:55 PM

Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

Dear and all

From the work my colleagues and I have been doing around health visiting and

school nursing leadership, we are aware that a few of SHAs and also trusts are

beginning to ensure all the HV and SN staff have been trained in motivational

interviewing and that is why I found the discussion so useful as for me one of

the things I have been concerned about with health visitors in particular is

their poor interpersonal skills and the fact that they are no longer always seen

as a need within a HV education programme. Work a colleague has been doing in

the acute services with qualified nurses shows how poor they are at talking to

patients and if you cannot talk to families and clients - then how can you do

health visiting.

Also in using supervision based on the Solihull Approach alongside the HV and

Sn leadership programmes we have seen a major change in the way the

participants function and challenge as the on going evaluation shows. There are

other applications of the Solihull approach not just with early intervention for

specific problems and the model being used in the West Midlands through a

clinical psychology colleague is much less time consuming than the FNP model

which would just not be feasible in normal HV and SN practice. The supervision

approach we have been using is empowering for the staff which then enables them

to empower and work better with their clients - I am not so sure that is always

happening with the FNP supervision model as there is reams of paperwork in their

supervision process and it would seem much more control from the supervisor.

If anyone would like a copy of the evaluation of the HV and SN supervision and

the course please let me know.

Margaret

two new education documents [2 Attachments]

The Department of Health have released two new documents about health visitor

education: one is guide for pre-qualifying programmes and one is about Return to

Practice programmes. Attached, or download from

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolic\

yAndGuidance/DH_129682

and

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolic\

yAndGuidance/DH_129697

I think the RtP one is more clearly written (congratulations Ros and Rita, whose

contributions were acknowledged) although I wished there had been more examples

of face-to-face client contact in the examples of how to achieve the learning

outcomes. I found it strange that the learning outcomes/standards in this

document differed somewhat from those stated in the NMC qualifying guidance, as

I had thought RtP students had to meet the same standards as students qualifying

for the first time, but perhaps I have that wrong.

I have some concerns about the way the general education guidance is presented,

too, although I support the overall thrust of the aim to ensure that education

does enable students to deliver the new 'vision.' Perhaps I am just being picky,

will be interested in others' views

best wishes

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183%40btinternet.com><mailto:sar\

ahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183%40btinternet.com>>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

Many thanks

________________________________

From: [ ] On Behalf Of

Cowley [sarahcowley183@...]

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:34 PM

Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

, I think s looked quite a bit at health visiting leadership

for her PhD, although I believe it started out by looking at skillmix and teams.

I have only had a couple of very brief conversations with her about it, so might

have recalled it quite wrongly. Does anyone else know? Or have current contact

details? She was at ARU.

best wishes

On 1 Sep 2011, at 11:46, Stansfield, wrote:

Dear Margaret,

I hope you are well, good to hear the course is going well. Please could you

forward a copy of the HV and SN supervision and the course details.

As I think I mentioned to you and Sue at the leadership sessions I attended with

you both last year. I am looking at leadership and health visiting and how

health visitors make sense of leadership for my Doctorate. So any feedback from

the work that you are doing would be really useful.

Could I ask if anybody on SENATE knows of any key work done in health visiting

and leadership that has or is curently being undertaken could they advise. I am

struggling to find much work in this area.

Many thanks

________________________________

From: <mailto: >

[ <mailto: >] On Behalf Of

Margaret Buttigieg

[margaret@...<mailto:margaret@...>\

]

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:55 PM

<mailto: >

Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

Dear and all

From the work my colleagues and I have been doing around health visiting and

school nursing leadership, we are aware that a few of SHAs and also trusts are

beginning to ensure all the HV and SN staff have been trained in motivational

interviewing and that is why I found the discussion so useful as for me one of

the things I have been concerned about with health visitors in particular is

their poor interpersonal skills and the fact that they are no longer always seen

as a need within a HV education programme. Work a colleague has been doing in

the acute services with qualified nurses shows how poor they are at talking to

patients and if you cannot talk to families and clients - then how can you do

health visiting.

Also in using supervision based on the Solihull Approach alongside the HV and

Sn leadership programmes we have seen a major change in the way the

participants function and challenge as the on going evaluation shows. There are

other applications of the Solihull approach not just with early intervention for

specific problems and the model being used in the West Midlands through a

clinical psychology colleague is much less time consuming than the FNP model

which would just not be feasible in normal HV and SN practice. The supervision

approach we have been using is empowering for the staff which then enables them

to empower and work better with their clients - I am not so sure that is always

happening with the FNP supervision model as there is reams of paperwork in their

supervision process and it would seem much more control from the supervisor.

If anyone would like a copy of the evaluation of the HV and SN supervision and

the course please let me know.

Margaret

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...<mailto:sarahcowley183@...>

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

[Guest guest]

is now at York University, (and using her maiden name ).

Woody.

From: on behalf of Cowley

Sent: Thu 01/09/2011 12:34

Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

, I think s looked quite a bit at health visiting leadership for her PhD, although I believe it started out by looking at skillmix and teams. I have only had a couple of very brief conversations with her about it, so might have recalled

it quite wrongly. Does anyone else know? Or have current contact details? She was at ARU.

best wishes

On 1 Sep 2011, at 11:46, Stansfield, wrote:

Dear Margaret,

I hope you are well, good to hear the course is going well. Please could you forward a copy of the HV and SN supervision and the course details.

As I think I mentioned to you and Sue at the leadership sessions I attended with you both last year. I am looking at leadership and health visiting and how health visitors make sense of leadership for my Doctorate. So any feedback from the work that you are

doing would be really useful.

Could I ask if anybody on SENATE knows of any key work done in health visiting and leadership that has or is curently being undertaken could they advise. I am struggling to find much work in this area.

Many thanks

________________________________

From: [ ] On Behalf Of Margaret Buttigieg [margaret@...]

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 4:55 PM

Subject: Re: two new education documents- Re motivating clients

Dear and all

From the work my colleagues and I have been doing around health visiting and school nursing leadership, we are aware that a few of SHAs and also trusts are beginning to ensure all the HV and SN staff have been trained in motivational interviewing and that is

why I found the discussion so useful as for me one of the things I have been concerned about with health visitors in particular is their poor interpersonal skills and the fact that they are no longer always seen as a need within a HV education programme. Work

a colleague has been doing in the acute services with qualified nurses shows how poor they are at talking to patients and if you cannot talk to families and clients - then how can you do health visiting.

Also in using supervision based on the Solihull Approach alongside the HV and Sn leadership programmes we have seen a major change in the way the participants function and challenge as the on going evaluation shows. There are other applications of the Solihull

approach not just with early intervention for specific problems and the model being used in the West Midlands through a clinical psychology colleague is much less time consuming than the FNP model which would just not be feasible in normal HV and SN practice.

The supervision approach we have been using is empowering for the staff which then enables them to empower and work better with their clients - I am not so sure that is always happening with the FNP supervision model as there is reams of paperwork in their

supervision process and it would seem much more control from the supervisor.

If anyone would like a copy of the evaluation of the HV and SN supervision and the course please let me know.

Margaret

Cowley

sarahcowley183@...

http://myprofile.cos.com/S124021COn

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were ratedas 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'.Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions Studies; Art Design; English Language Literature; Geography Environmental Studies;History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work Social Policy Administration.Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information.This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system.Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communicationsEmail has beenscanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service