How to write a reflective account for revalidation.

We should engage with the Code.

The NMC may be doing better, but it's still failing.

ISSN 2050-3717 Printed by Pensord Press Ltd, Blackwood, NP12 2YA CONSULTANT EDITOR Cheryl Barton Aesthetic Nurse and Managing Director, Aesthetika, Sheffield EDITORIAL BOARD Julie Brackenbury Aesthetic Nurse Consultant, Bristol Susie Byass Aesthetic Nurse Practitioner, Rejuvenating Solutions Ltd, Berwick Upon Tweed Annie Cartwright Advanced Aesthetic Practitioner and Director, Skin & Face Clinics Ltd, Cardiff, Wales Leslie Fletcher Aesthetic Nurse Specialist, USA. Founder of the InjectAbility Institute for Aesthetic Education Trudy Friedman Aesthetic Nurse Practitioner, Aesthetic Skin Centre Sarah Holness Clinic Director, Sarah Holness Aesthetics, Kent Yvonne Senior Advanced Aesthetic Nurse Practitioner, Independent Prescriber and mentor. Trainer and co-founder of PIAPA Nicola Webster Clinical Director and Aesthetic Nurse, Rejuven8, Doncaster Lynn Warren Clinic Director, The Retreat Beauty Clinic and Cosmedical Ltd, Leeds EDITOR: Natasha Devan natasha.devan@markallengroup.com GROUP CLASSIFIED MANAGER: Rachel McElhinney rachel.mcelhinney@markallengroup.com CIRCULATION DIRECTOR: Sally Boettcher PRODUCTION MANAGER: Jon Redmayne PUBLISHER: Anthony Kerr anthony.kerr@markallengroup.com ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER: Julie Smith COMMERCIAL MANAGER: Hanette Ibrahim hanette.ibrahim@markallengroup.com CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Ben Allen MANAGING DIRECTOR: Jon Benson O n 5 June 2015, the British Association of Cosmetic Nurses (BACN) and the Private Independent Aesthetic Practices Association (PIAPA) released a joint statement over their shared concern regarding the promotion and marketing of voluntary registers, and questioned whether these registers can claim ‘safer’ clinicians (BACN and PIAPA, 2015). Both the BACN and PIAPA, who hold a ‘register’ of their members, are participating in the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) revalidation pilot group, the new process by which nurses and midwives demonstrate that they practise safely and effectively. They are also contributing to the work of Health Education North West London, which is leading the review of the qualifications required for the provision of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. The publication of a joint statement from BACN and PIAPA was a defining moment for professional aesthetic nurses. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time that nurses from the two largest professional aesthetic nursing organisations have collectively combined and cooperated as one single voice. We were left in no doubt that the message given by them was both serious and weighty. The statement said: ‘We firmly believe that no nurse, doctor or dentist should feel the need to join a fee-charging voluntary registration body to reassure the general public as to their professional competence’. It continued: ‘Any voluntary register that is offering guarantees of professional practice beyond a premises check could not sustain this position if this is challenged by a patient. Any complaint would always find its way back to the governing councils. The voluntary registers therefore cannot offer any kind of guarantee of patient safety or access to a process for complaints without the approval of the governing councils.’ Although the NMC exists to ‘protect the public’, it remains reluctant to engage or even consult on any guidance for aesthetic nurses. On 8 June, the NMC (@nmcnews) sent a tweet stating ‘we have no plans at present to issue specific guidance on cosmetic nursing’. Meanwhile, the mandatory bodies of our colleagues are acting. The General Medical Council (2015) is now consulting on guidance for doctors offering surgical and non-surgical cosmetic interventions, to promote safe, patient-centred care, by ensuring doctors know what is expected of them. To my relief, I noted that there is an NMC registrant, who is also an aesthetic prescribing nurse, sitting on that group. Likewise, the General Dental Council is actively campaigning and even prosecuting non-compliant therapists who are illegally practising and training others on teeth whitening. It is the deafening silence of the NMC that remains the elephant in the statutory bodies’ room. Patients, the public and our professional colleagues rightly expect that we are delivering care as NMC registrants within agreed ethical, legal and practical standards. Aesthetic nurses are looking to their own mandatory body for leadership on how best to assure patients and consumers that those who carry out cosmetic procedures have the skills to do so. Further delay in addressing the issue of guidance for aesthetic nurses may risk the NMC again being labelled as ‘out of touch’ or ‘not acting in the public interest’. It is now time that the BACN and PIAPA, with their new found symbiosis and collective voice, clear their desks to urgently prepare and issue another joint statement, starting with something like this: Dear NMC...

This summer we have seen the publication of continuing professional development (CPD) standards by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2008). These have been long-awaited and I must be honest and say that, quite frankly, I am disappointed with them. The NMC (2008) circular, which introduces the guidance, quite rightly states that the NMC has a statutory responsibility to safeguard the public, and that the Shipman enquiry recommended that there should be mandatory CPD requirements for all prescribers. It also goes on to say that public opinion nowadays demands that trust in healthcare must be underpinned by objective assurance. Indeed, the NMC leaflet for patients (NMC, 2006), detailing what to expect from a nurse or midwife prescriber, says that the public can be assured that nurses who prescribe are updated regularly.

Communication is the two-way process of giving and receiving information, both verbally and non-verbally. It is a key and essential aspect of nursing care. Communication is a core dimension in the NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework (Department of Health 2004) and within the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Code of Standards (Nursing and Midwifery Council 2008). Both refer to the requirements for communication with a range of people (colleagues, external agencies, and patients) on a variety of simple and complex matters.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) states that midwives should reflect on their practice in order to highlight areas where changes might lead to improvements in future. The NMC Code also states that midwives must be aware of, and mitigate as far as possible, any potential harm associated with practice. The importance of reflection cannot be underestimated in relation to providing high quality, safe and effective care in line with the standards expected by the NMC, employers and service users. A previous article in this series discussed an innovative e-module supporting student midwives' employability, social awareness and preparedness for professional practice on qualification. This article will review the e-module through a different lens: that of the student. Alice will share her experiences from the student's perspective of how she feels engagement with this module will impact on her employment opportunities and future practice.

This article explores the important activity of reflection and reflective practice. Support workers and nursing associates, as well as all healthcare professionals, have a responsibility to reflect upon their own practice, identifying not only areas of good practice but also where improvements can be made. The article starts by defining what reflection and reflective practice are. The requirement to reflect is clearly laid down within the recently amended Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) code for nursing associates ( NMC, 2018 ) and is implied within the Code of Conduct for Healthcare Support Workers and Adult Social Care Workers in England ( Skills for Care and Skills for Health, 2013 ). Relevant sections of these two codes will be highlighted. The article will then move on to highlight two reflective models, the Gibbs (1988) Reflective Cycle, and Driscoll's (2007) Model of Structured Reflection, both of which are commonly used today. Clinical supervision will be discussed and the importance of recording reflections will be emphasised.

ObjectiveUse a pragmatic mixed methods approach to provide a rich understanding of the perceptions of Problematic Substance Use (PSU) and the influences of PSU on the mental and physical health of midwives registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). DesignA confidential and anonymous self-administered online survey was employed to encourage wider participation. SettingUnited Kingdom ParticipantsMidwives (n=623) registered with the NMC MeasurementsOpen text responses were invited throughout the survey. Along with the collection of brief demographic data, PSU was also measured using the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and Substance Use/Misuse (TAPS) Tool whilst mental and physical health was measured via version 2 of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey. All qualitative open text responses were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Multiple regression was used to test whether health outcomes in the sample as a whole were predicted by PSU and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the health dimensions between participants who met the criteria for PSU and those who did not. FindingsPSU significantly predicted poorer general health, physical functioning, and mental functioning. Additionally, those who met criteria for PSU experienced significantly poorer general, mental, and physical health than those who did not. The influence of PSU was captured via 3 themes and 10 subthemes. Though the signs and symptoms of PSU identified remained broadly consistent, approaches to management did not. Many midwives were conflicted in how they might seek support without facing professional, personal and practical reprisal. Key conclusions and implications for practicePSU in midwifery populations poses professional, personal, and occupational risks. Congruence between policies and approaches to identification and management may reduce risk overall. Future interventions including educational and practitioner health programmes could also be usefully co-created with midwives, policy, and decision makers to reduce stigmatising attitudes and encourage greater awareness, compassion and help seeking to appropriate sources.

Workmatters is a free, quarterly e-magazine produced for NHS staff by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).

British Journal of Neuroscience NursingVol. 8, No. 1 EditorialContinuing professional developmentSue WoodwardSue WoodwardSearch for more papers by this authorSue WoodwardPublished Online:27 Sep 2013https://doi.org/10.12968/bjnn.2012.8.1.5AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), 2008 Nursing and Midwifery Council (2008) The Code: Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics for Nurses and Midwives. NMC, London Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 1 February 2012Volume 8Issue 1ISSN (print): 1747-0307ISSN (online): 2052-2800 Metrics History Published online 27 September 2013 Published in print 1 February 2012 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) protects the health and wellbeing of the public. It has recently relaunched its website with specific sections for the general public, nurses and midwives, employers and managers, educators, students, and press and media. The employers and managers section provides useful information on the responsibilities of an employer.

Current midwifery practice is regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), whose primary role is to safeguard the public through setting standards for education and practice and regulating fitness to practise, conduct and performance through rules and codes ( NMC, 2012 ; 2015a ). Practice is informed by evidence-based guidelines developed and implemented by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence based on hierarchies of evidence, with meta-analyses and systematic reviews being identified as the ‘gold standard’. This positivist epistemological approach as developed by Auguste Comte (1798–1857), with scientific evidence at the top of a knowledge hierarchy, fails to acknowledge the ‘art of midwifery’, where a constructivist paradigm of experiential, intuitive and tacit knowledge is used by reflective practitioners to provide high-quality care. As midwifery pre-registration education is now degree-level, is the essence of midwifery practice being ‘with woman’ providing holistic care under threat, as the drive for a systematic and analytical approach to decision-making gathers momentum?

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) plays a key role in regulating the nursing profession, with one of the primary methods being the 'fitness to practise' process. Although the percentage of nurses who undergo this process is very small, the NMC has a responsibility to protect, promote and maintain public health, safety and wellbeing, while ensuring public confidence in the nursing services provided. This article analyses a community-oriented fitness to practise case, exploring its progression and considering the impact on the registrant from both practical and psychological perspectives. Additionally, it examines the support systems available to nurses undergoing investigations and the importance of reflective practice in maintaining professional standards.

Edge et al explore the current concerns and ongoing debate around the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Future Nurse: Standards of proficiency for registered nurses (2018). This article looks at the impact of the standards on changes to pre-registration children's nursing education, exploring the impact on ensuring students are equipped with the right knowledge and skills to meet children, young people and their families' needs. Central to the discussion is the importance of hearing the voice of children and young people, and families are considered central to the ongoing discussion that is integral in shaping our future nursing workforce.

Common sense has prevailed in the debate about whether nurses should be allowed to accept gifts from patients. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has backed off from banning all gifts in the latest draft of its ‘evolving’ Code of Professional Conduct. Instead, the NMC has watered down an earlier draft and will consult in June on a version that says practitioners must ‘refuse any gifts, favours or hospitality that might be interpreted as an attempt to gain preferential treatment’.