I've not read a newspaper in many a year – well I've not held a
newspaper in my hands, one of the old fashioned sort, made of wood pulp and
recycled materials. I guess its people like me that have contributed to the
demise of the printed word, especially in the form of a daily newspaper. These
days, like many other people I hear the news on the radio, or read on-line
versions of newspapers and/or TV news programmes. I often hear the genesis of a
breaking news story on my way into work and then hear how the story has
developed during the day on my return journey.
One newspaper that has successfully made the transition from pulped
wood to digital is the Guardian. Although this is not a newspaper I would
particularly want to read, the Guardian is one of the most read
English language news websites in the world, with 111.5m unique browsers
accessing this web site each month. The fact that it doesn't make a profit
(£31m loss this year, £33m the year before) doesn't seem to matter.
Last week saw the announcement that the Guardians Editor of 20
years, Alan Rusbridger (whose annual salary is £491,000) is to retire next
summer. Under his editorship, the Guardian was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for
public service (following the exposure of the surveillance activities of
various US governmental security organisations). It was the Guardian that first
broke the News of World phoning hacking story, which eventually led to the
Leveson enquiry into press standards.
All good stuff and I wish Alan a long and happy retirement. However,
it was a story in another newspaper that caught my eye at the start of last
week. I had heard the radio announcer say they were to do a piece later on in
the news bulletin about how digital technology is being used to help blind
people see. Due to finishing my journey I missed the story and searched on line
for it. Alas, to no avail. What I did find was a story published by the
Telegraph newspaper (one I would be inclined to read) from way back in April
this year. Reading it made me stop and think.
It was a story drawn from a research report published by the Royal
National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) about the dwindling numbers of Eye
Clinic Liaison Officers (ECLO) to be found in specialist eye hospitals. The
report (can be found here) notes that often these clinics are so busy that
doctors and nurses have little time to discuss with patients how they might
deal with the loss of their sight. Only 218 of more than 400 eye clinics and
hospitals have support staff, trained and skilled to provide advice on
practical issues or to offer emotional support when people are told their sight
cannot be saved. Having spent 2 weeks trying to get my glasses sorted (yes I
know I should have gone to S********s) and struggled to read my computer
screen, mobile, and the many requests for money that pass over my desk every
day, and feeling very sorry for myself in the process I cannot begin to imagine
what it must be like to be told you are losing your sight and there being no one
there to help.
There was a group of health care professionals who were up in arms
at the end of last week because they believed they would lose the opportunity
to help and practice as specialists. This group were the Mental Health Academics UK (MHAcUK). Lord Willis (who is the independent chair of the Shape of Care review into
the future nursing workforce) gave an interview to a journalist last week. In it he was said to advocate a more generic approach to the early part of
nurse education, with specialist knowledge and skills being a feature of the
later part of the educational programme (perhaps even into the first year of
practice as a newly qualified nurse). Whether he said these things or not, the
MHAcUK group appeared to feel the role of the mental health nurse
was doomed.
One consequence was that last Thursday and Friday my in-box was filled with emails from mental
health (academic) nurses intent on marching to the House of Lords and demanding
full recognition for the skills and knowledge mental health nurses have as a
profession. I am a mental health nurse by professional background, and I
disagreed with the stance taken by MHAcUK and told them so. I thought they were
missing the point of the review. Indeed mental health nurses only deal with a
very small part of the population who experience mental health problems.
I do recognise that often they work with people who mental health needs are complex
and challenging. But the world is changing – as with newspapers, digital technology is
challenging traditional service delivery and facilitating greater service user
involvement and determination of service provision. Likewise, who actually provides services these days is changing. As my colleague Professor Davie Richards so eloquently noted last week
‘In the 1970s and 80s, mental health nurses were the
obvious professional group suitable for training as psychological therapists.
In the 21st century, newly qualified mental health nurses do not
have the skills and knowledge to care for and treat the most prevalent and
epidemiologically burdensome mental health conditions, requiring the English NHS
to invest £700m over the last 6 years establishing and training a totally new
workforce to do the job. The two most prevalent and burdensome mental health
conditions – depression and dementia – are currently, and will in the future be
even more so, the business of non-mental health professionals. People with
dementia receive their care overwhelmingly from professionals, informal carers
and para-professionals, not mental health nurses’
Mental health nurse academics like newspaper editors and owners perhaps
need to change their view of the world. In this case, to consider once again, what they should be thinking about in terms of providing the best and most appropriate educational
preparation for our mental health nurses of the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment