Health Visitor turned up after I declined appointment

[AliceBeazley]

So, the Health Visitor. I understand it can be a valuable service to some, and it's good we have this available to us if we need it.

That said, I've never really felt the need myself. I had a visit from one once or twice after my first son was born, and she was very nice but it wasn't especially useful and just took up my time when I would rather have been doing something else.

Whenever I've been sent an appointment, I've gone through the checklist and never had any concerns. I've also got various books on child development in the early years and am proactive about checking whether milestones are being met. I've therefore cancelled all HV appointments that have been sent, and other than the office staff seeming a little puzzled, I've never had an issue doing this.

Roll on to baby number 2. I declined the checks from the start, other than arranging for the HV to come and weigh him when he was a few weeks old. When the 1 year check appointment came through I called the office and cancelled again. The woman said she would pass the message on to the HV.

The HV called and left a message to say she had my message and that's fine, but she could come and do another weigh if I wanted to, yada yada yada.

Feeling the matter was resolved, I forgot about it.

This morning the HV turned up at the door for the 9-12 month check. I explained it had been cancelled, and she sort of made noises as if that was a surprise. I said hang on, did you say your name was "Emma", wasn't it you who left a message for me to acknowledge I'd cancelled. She then said "Yes but as I said, it would be nice to meet you both". I said "Well there's lots of people it would be nice to meet, but you can't just turn up at people's doors uninvited". It was this point she obviously could tell I was annoyed at her intrusion and decides to scuttle off again.

I'm pretty annoyed by this to be honest. She knew I wasn't interested but she tried to disregard my wishes and try and come in anyway. I know a lot of people think HV appointments are mandatory and they don't do anything to point out the contrary. I feel like she just wanted to railroad me into letting her in whether I wanted to see her or not. This tactic probably works on some. I have to say I find it quite disturbing that someone acting on behalf of a government funded organisation can decide to turn up at your house and ask to see your children and intrude upon your privacy without any mandate or justification. As if the state knows better than me and I am unable to opt out.

Am I being unreasonable? I feel like complaining about this as its a complete overstep. I've no idea who to complain to or if it would even do any good. I'd appreciate other's thoughts on it. TIA.

Nurses aren't 'backup' doctors 😂

It's a completely different role.

You're obviously spoiling for a fight and / or don't understand the healthcare system in the UK:

Where has a single person on here said a nurse is a doctor?! They haven't.

As I say I think you're just keen for a row as your posts are bizarre.

@youvegottenminuteslynn I didn't say they were 'backup doctors'. Please learn to read. Nurses are not doctors. The only one spoiling for a fight is you.

It's a completely different role.

That's my entire point!!!

@youvegottenminuteslynn You're the one that says nurses can't prescribe medication. You clearly think nurses and doctors are the same thing. I, am the one who has been saying a nurse and a doctor are two entirely different things.

Only a doctor can prescribe medications.

*can not can't.

Nope, in the UK a nurse or midwife who is an accredited prescriber can (funnily enough) prescribe medication.

So you're just wrong I'm afraid 🤷🏻‍♀️

The fact of the matter is that there is no transparency about the purpose of their visits. If they are for safeguarding be honest.

My HV was unable to explain her role, unable to explain why she turned up (late) for a 9am appointment for which I had received an appointment letter at 8.50am when I had a 10 day old baby. Her response was that she was responsible for ensuring my baby was immunised. I asked some questions about immunisation such as the load of so many immunisations for a small baby and potential links with allergies. She was unable to answer and responded she only knew about the information in the leaflet. I could have been provided with the leaflet when I left the maternity ward. I asked if she could find out and she responded that she would look into it. The next thing that happened was that I was sent a letter from the immunisation team to discuss my baby's breathing issues because that's what she wrote to them about. My baby didn't have breathing issues.

I was instructed to sttend a weighing clinic every two weeks and she couldn't provide a sound reason why or communicate it was there if I wanted to use it.

When I contacted the HV for help with breastfeeding recovering from the second bout of mastitis, and was in extreme internal breast pain and very cracked nipples, she told me to sit by the fire, wrapped in a blanket to keep warm and air my breasts and that if I wanted more expert advice I should phone the NCT.

That was the point where I formally refused their services subsequent to her boss simply making excuses. Her boss told me the HVs role was to make sure I was speaking to my baby enough for him to develop speech! I therefore read him the Iliad and the Odyssey when he was months old. However, he did bring me home a first in classics from Oxford aged 22!

Shortly afterwards the Head of the HV Association gave an interview to The Times and was quoted as saying the role of the HV was to teach mothers the three Cs: cooking, cleaning and communication.

In my experience they served no clinical, collaborative, helpful or supportive service. If my experience at the hands of a 23 year old is anything to go by I fail to see what their useful purpose is.

A sensible, experienced and supportive ear for advice yes. The claptrap I received, delivered to create maximum inconvenience, no.

As others have said, I rely on expert clinical advice from suitably qualified consultants. When my dc had ear problems and hearing loss arising from repeated ear infections they were referred to a consultant ent surgeon and I followed their advice to grommet. When my son's asthma post bronchiolitis appeared intractable at 8 months and when no progress was being made despite advice from the local NHS Hospital's paediatric department, he was referred to a leading consultant at the Royal Brompton. One session with a specialist asthma nurse, provision if a small and easily used inhaler for £25 but not available on the NHS with advice about counting the number of breaths rather than to ten (as per the paediatric nurses at the local hospital) had him turned around in a week.

The quality of NHS care for children at all levels of the system was abysmal 27 years ago. I dread to think what it's like now.

Whilst I don't think the op went about it the right way I agree entirely with her sentiments and God help those who aren't articulate and those who don't have the means to pay for high quality clinical consultant delivered care.

I don’t really know how anyone who has watched the news in the last few months and seen the horrific child abuse that has happened behind closed doors could resent state interference in checking up on a child’s well-being. You being difficult has no doubt resulted in more forms/tedious paperwork for an overstretched service which takes them away from what they actually need to be doing.

IMO these visits, or something similar, absolutely should be mandatory.

I declined all the checks following the initial visit and nobody batted an eyelid.

The HV was overstepping in my opinion. There was no evidence of anything to warrant a safeguarding check and it's not unreasonable to decline a optional service like the HV.

@GivenchyDahhling actually I suppose if they were mandatory absolute clarity would have to be provided in relation to the purpose of their visits. That would be a step forward

I think a few of you are missing the point. Just the HV clapping eyes on the baby is generally enough to see it’s not being starved, is clean and being cared for adequately. Just because you got a piece of crappy advice from a HV doesn’t mean their services aren’t worthwhile and that they shouldn’t be able to satisfy themselves that the children in their care aren’t being neglected. How else should neglect be picked up? Any ideas?

This is a very naive post, IMO.

Having experience with children in social care, 'clapping eyes on' someone is absolutely not enough.

If the prupose of the HV is to really be part of the social work system, then the system and legal framework needs and overhaul.

You are kidding yourself if you think 15 mins in a house is going to make any real difference to anything.

I didn’t say it was a thorough check but they can spot malnutrition, dehydration or obvious injuries. It’s much better than nothing at all.

You’ve been defensive and evasive. No wonder they want to see the children. You could have saved yourself a whole load of problems by allowing a visit. Your behaviour will have raised flag, quite rightly.

The appointment would be cancelled if an injury was glaringly obvious.

Honestly, I know people want it all to be lovely, but the social work system is completely broken - if you really care about children start campaigning for budget x4 what is currently spent and get serious about it.

A 15 minute HV check is going to do so little. It is a nice-to-have for some people, and because it is universal it gives the appearance of doing something when actually 90% of people don't need it at all and 10% of people need about 10x the help.

I’m thankful for my HV who turned up when I had terrible ‘flu’ and asked me some questions then advised I had mastitis and to ring the doctor for some antibiotics. I’m sure I would have suffered in silence otherwise and possibly got very ill.

I said "Well there's lots of people it would be nice to meet, but you can't just turn up at people's doors uninvited"

You sound like an utter knob

Just because you got a piece of crappy advice from a HV doesn’t mean their services aren’t worthwhile and that they shouldn’t be able to satisfy themselves that the children in their care aren’t being neglected. but their services weren’t of any use to me and my children are in MY care which includes choosing who they see and what is appropriate for them.

Clearly you fail to understand that health visitors are educated to degree level and specifically trained to work with babies and toddlers. A real, actual doctor without paediatric training would be as much use as a real, actual chocolate teapot.. This is simply not true. GPs are very well placed to diagnose treat or refer infants and are far more appropriate to see if you or your child need to. I can’t imagine why anyone would think a HV would give better medical advice because they’ve been to university for an extra year😱

OP wsn't being "difficult". She called to cancel as shes entitled to. That's not "being difficult". There is no legal framework for an HV to insist on seeing every baby. Someone not wanting to waste their time on a health visitor when their experience of health visitors has been that they aren't useful isn't that person being "difficult". The health visitor is the one who was "difficult", who turned up anyway, who was disingenuous about the visit until called out.

Making visits mandatory is a possibility (though not likely to be effective), but it isn't how things are, so OP is not being at all "difficult".

but It isn’t about you

Couldn't agree more with you. When I think of how the other of Baby P-to name just one baby murderer-was able to turn away health visitors and social workers, it makes my blood run cold.

No parent-no, not one-should be able to "decline visits", without massive alarm bells going off.

Maybe lessons have been learned if the health visitor chose to ignore a decline reply. Thank goodness and more power to their elbow.

The baby is in OP's care, not the HV's. And while it's comforting to think we could prevent child abuse by having some sort of state oversight of parents, it is not true. In general the state is a much worse caregiver than parents are. Giving the state more authority than parents will result in worse outcomes for kids overall. Unless there is evidence that parents aren't doing their job, it would be foolish to allow the state to overrule parents.

Baby-P's case was entirely different. In that case there was evidence of abuse and cause for concern and SS failed to use the powers available to ensure Baby-P's safety and well being.

In this case there are no causes for concern. There is no authority to see the child because there are no causes for concern. Using a case in which the state failed to use their powers in order justify more powers for state is a very authoritarian approach and unlikely to lead to better outcomes for children on average.

How did they know there was no cause for concern?
Because the OP told them? 😂