To think the health visitor shouldn’t be optional anymore?

[Belindaminder]

Over the years I’ve been aware of situations that may not have escalated if a professional had noticed and intervened.
A previous neighbour refused any visits from both midwife and HV after the birth as they are ‘know it alls and it’s not necessary’. Her baby needed an emergency operation due to an illness that hadn’t been noted. Also it was discovered later on he had partial deafness which would have been picked up during the hearing test.
Someone I know well opted out of seeing a health visitor when her baby was born. As a result she has never been weighed (since birth), and has never reached out for advice or support with several issues the baby has had ‘because she’ll grow out of them naturally’.
I worry babies like this disappear into the shadows and miss out on health or developmental support they may need. Also the potential hiding of abuse (in parent or child or both), neglect, depression etc that may not be picked up until nursery age or later.
I’ve heard many horror stories that could have been prevented with a professional being aware.
I was thankful for my HV when my eldest was born. I was in an abusive situation. I really wanted to breastfeed but I was ‘forbidden’ from doing it. The HV was great at giving me a confidence boost and reassuring me my baby was healthy. The support I was given lead me to the happy situation I am now in, which wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for her. (I’ve had awful ones too, I’m not praising them as royalty, just that their profession is necessary).
I know I will see responses that it’s our human right to decide and many babies and families are absolutely fine and gain nothing by the HV visits, but what about the ones who aren’t? In my eyes as a HV I’d be concerned and suspicious about why someone opted out of something that was to provide advice and care for their child. There were no ‘repercussions’ for the people who refused a HV when they needed one. Shouldn't it be viewed as neglect?
Does anyone agree that HV visits should be part of the deal of having a baby or face the consequences, or am I on my own here?

I agree with the sentiment entirely, but also think that the provision provided by HV and midwives is largely inadequate anyway and so I fear that it doesn’t make much difference whether those people are seen or not. I do think it’s frightening how many children don’t get regular contact with anyone responsible for safeguarding until they’re of school age.

Don’t most kids go to nursery where you are?

Health visitors definitely did hearing checks on my DC.

Most children from affluent families do, yes. But those from vulnerable and low income families aren’t so likely to, no.

News flash….they didn’t….that will have been the lovely people who trained 3 years at university to be audiologists 🤣

My experience with health visitors.

My first son died - she came to my home and called me a selfish little girl 3 weeks later because I didn't inform her and she didn't get to go to his funeral. She had met him once.

My second son was born - she walked in said "oooh congratulations, does he look anything like your dead son" and I asked her to leave. She then told my gp and SS that I had undiagnosed PND. I didn't.

Third son was born - 3 months later I was collapsing with pain from, what turned out to be, gallstones. I was on so much medication I decided to stop breast feeding. My health visitor told me off for 'doing what was best for me and not what was best for my baby".

I declined HV after those experiences, and it was so much more peaceful.

I would absolutely not be happy with having them inflicted on me with no choice.

No. They were the health visitors, I can assure you. Qualified nurses. The same ones I’d seen since my babies were newborn and they came to my house.

It’s puzzling as to why so many unhappy parents are all on Mumsnet, as in real life, most families appear pretty satisfied with the service.

Do you think we're all lying?

Because despite this additional training in maternal mental health that you mention, I was told to wait for the "phase to pass" when I completely broke down and told the HV I was very close to suicide.
I've rarely felt as alone and as desperate as when I watched her walk out the door leaving me in tears holding a newborn, after breezily declaring "just wait for the phase to pass". I genuinely thought I would not survive the next 24 hours.

And I did call their central phone line a few times (later on) to ask some questions about weaning with allergies, toddler hearing etc - the kind of things I assumed a HV would know or be able to advise on. I was always just referred to the GP.

All the HV ever did was hand me some leaflets with out of date and incorrect information about the baby weighing clinics. Complete waste of time.

So you not living in England then…..where we have the 2 year offer for all poor and vulnerable children to access 15 hours free nursery every week? Funny cos I thought Scotland and wales offer the 2 year offer as well ?

Doesn’t mean they take up the offer, though.

Why are you so intent on arguing? I haven’t said the majority, I said “many”.

Very few settings accept funded hours without a top up payments. It’s not as accessible as it sounds.

But it’s only new borns who have hearing screening….it’s not done after that until they start school…..I mean a health visitor might have said are you happy your child hears ….or done a little whisper ….but that’s not a hearing check….they are not done by health visitors….if you think that a health visitor did a formal hearing check on your child report them …because they have no qualifications to do it….and I’m not sure where they would have got the equipments from ? 🤔any concerns about hearing they will refer to audiology for you

You made a statement that you think it’s frightening that so many vulnerable children are not seen before starting school….I merely corrected this to advise that these vulnerable and poorer children are seen at nursery…..that may be in your area that it is difficult to use the funding …but not in mine where many nursery placements are council run….so now you have educated me

Our HV came an hour early without warning and was in and out in five minutes including getting DS naked and weighing him. She ticked that she'd seen our sleeping arrangements when she hadn't. She gleefully said that she was doing the extra Sunday shifts for the money and that she could see we were just one of those chilled households in spite of spending less time there than the average pushy cold caller.

I wouldn't trust her to spot a child being abused if they were slapped in front of her.

In my area the funding means very little. They’re all private nurseries with a sprinkling of funded preschools from age 3 attached to primary schools - I couldn’t get my eldest in with my application going in one year in advance, but managed to get my second in by putting him on the list two years in advance! Such is the demand.

Free book and toothbrush??😱 hell no….none of that where I worked.

Well, they did. I was there. Hearing checks were done at the baby clinic for both my DC. We used the health visitor service regularly until about age 3.

Come on PP ….even the health visitor haters further up the thread said that it was always audiologists that did hearing checks…..unless you had your baby in the 1980s or earlier?
No health visitor would have a clue how to use the equipment

Of course it shouldn't be compulsory, they're not the Baby Police. What a waste of their time, considering many of us do not need a visit and the home inspection idea is intrusive and frankly offensive.

If you're concerned about safeguarding, the Sure Start centres were the life-lines for many new parents and valuable for early interventions, especially in certain areas. There's a strong case to reinstate these and further expand provision.

The Scottish Government tried this with their Named Person Scheme a few years ago and managed to unite Scotland against it.

The courts threw it out as illegal. It's an infringement on private family life.

Not one at risk child will be saved by diverting resources away from them to monitor everyone else.

Absolutely 100% agree.

In many years of health visiting I had only one family who declined my services.

This will undoubtedly be very heavily skewed by the fact that most people don't know that they can decline your services; plus that they will be worried that they will be judged negatively and maybe suspected of being up to no good if they do decline.

If GPs/midwives/posters on walls said something like "We have a free scheme whereby a HV can come out to you soon after you've gone home with your new baby and check that everything is OK. It's entirely up to you whether you want this service or not - just let us know if you do"... of course, you would still get plenty of 'customers' wanting you to call; but you would also get a large number who didn't.

Everybody knows that 'opt out' rather than 'opt in' schemes result in far, far more people participating - whether actively wanting to or forgetting/not bothering to state that they don't. No free trial subscription of a magazine, software, service or whatever gives you a week free, without taking your card details, and then just relies on you valuing it so much that you contact them to continue if you want to.

Add to that the fact that most people don't even know that it isn't compulsory (or, if they do, reckon that they'll be on a watch list if they decline), then it's hardly surprising that take-up is almost universal.