To think that Health visitors are a certain annoying breed generally?

[Moomin8]

I've just had my 4th baby and the health visitor came the other day. I found her really annoying and rude. First of all she came walking into my living room in her dirty boots and got mud all over my newly cleaned carpet.

My youngest before dc4 is 10 years old and the HV said she was going to therefore talk to me as if I'd never actually had a baby she also wanted to look in my bedroom - I told her no.

Then I thought back to my older dc and their HVs and realised they are all pretty much the same whereas midwives, when they visit are really nice and helpful usually and don't speak to you as though you're an idiot. I'm a 39 year old university educated person and I find these people intrusive and annoying.

What is it with health visitors?

Everywhere I've lived luckily still has childrens centres...although my closest one is £3.50 for 2DC at stay and play, a bus ticket is £4.50 return so tbh its not as accessible as it could be.

I’m glad to hear that @56Marshmallow

I had a superb Children’s Centre near us. It was one of the only local services (paid and unpaid) that was used by all demographics thanks to the lovely staff who took the time to get to know everyone and were never too busy to stop for a chat or subtly match-make parents who didn’t have anyone to talk to. Lovely place. We moved away just after DC2 was born, but I do hope it survived the cull.

I wish to note that my experiences are entirely factual. I apologise if speaking the truth hurts.

Due to my experiences 25 years ago I concluded the HV service represented the poor use of resources. There were about 20,000 hv's then on about £20k each with a management structure above them.

I imagine it is far more expensive now to provide despite economies such as the introduction of HCA's into clinics.

I disagree with the comment about vulnerable children falling through the net without universal HV. The system knows about previous family involvement with SS and an efficient system would pick this up but that would mean midwives and GPs who have a bigger picture and far more contact taking some pastoral responsibility and making a referral.

HVs and their Association need to do far more to improve the clarity and transparency of the service and to ensure there are clear guidelines about expectations, that they are consistently applied and that all advice is consistent, up to date and high quality. That is not presently happening and has not happened for decades.

May I also take the liberty of defining a decade. It is a period of 10 years. The plural of decades is therefore at least 20 years. I hope that point is taken and there is some reflection about how trust is lost when there is casual inaccuracy of factual information. No offence meant but if a person wualified 15 years ago they do not have decades of experience and it is the sort of casual inaccuracy that like a pebble causes attrition in what should be a relationship based on mutual trust and respect.

If a service is imposed there has to be a reciprocal commitment to high standards of professionalism and excellence from those providing it to the vast majority of new mothers who planned their babies, love them dearly and may be awash with hormones, sore breasts and childbirth related wounds which in any other circumstances would be regarded as serious injuries.

Personally I would rather see a more targetted service with the surplus funds allocated to better immediate post natal support for the majority, and a much more joined up and expert breast feeding support service than exists now.

What sits with me most is an article published in The Times in the spring of 1996 (I will try to check the archive when I am back at work) where the head of the Health Visitor's Association was quoted as saying the role of the HV was to teach mothers the three Cs: Cooking, Cleaning and Communication. It was deeply offensive and indicated a fundamental disrespect for women, including young mothers who represented some of The Times' readership at that time. If that was the perspective from the top of the HVA it is little wonder that there are some woeful attitudes amongst those who should be supporting new and not so new mothers at their most vulnerable. I doubt it is an attitude that has been erased.

I don't particularly care if HCPs groan "it's her again". Her again got a lactation counsellor appointed by her trust all those years ago - and a few other things. Her again has also highlighted significant issues re CAMHS and there are direct quotes in the improvement literature that has now been published in response to an independent review. People groaned when they heard the names of women who fought for the vote and I don't much care if I am an itch on an HCP's arse if it means the itch gets scratched and services improve and resources are used more wisely. They are after all the resources to which we, the mere people, contribute and we, the mere people or even the merer mothers are entitled to high quality services and so are our children.

The dictionary definition of "mum" is to be silent unless it is qualified with a name or pronoun such as Jane's mum, your mum. Yet mothers are referred to almost unilaterally as "mum" by hcp's - and it is a subliminal and anti-feminist mechanism of disempowerment. Is it really too much to ask for the courtesy of one's name to be used. Would an HCP/A address the doctor as "doc" or like it if mothers referred to them as "girl" because it would be no less disrespectful.

The suffragettes were working hard and speaking out for all women.
You are trying to condone changing a service based on your experience 20 years ago.
It is not the same thing.
Your ideas and suggestions are dangerous. You do not understand safeguarding.
Your experience as a service user of health visiting services when you used them is absolutely valid.
All services, health visiting included, gather feedback . The commissioners require it. Every service has focus groups with service users . Every service is inspected. No service is perfect and can always be improved. It’s a service which needs to meet the needs of all. Not one particular group of people.
The way you try to explain how vulnerable women are post delivery is patronising like no one else understands how vulnerable women are post delivery.
I don’t think you are in any position to talk about anti feminism given your comments about childless women.
You have disregarded all the positive comments in this thread in order to feed your own agenda that you don’t value the health visiting service.

And to be clear if I was asked by a client how long i have been qualified I would state the exact number of years. Not use the term “decades” Like your obstetrician did which is very ambiguous. But I was simply trying to understand why him not being a father wasn’t an issue but me not being a mother is. And all I can see is that it’s Because he’s a man and a doctor. Possibly also he was not young so therefore gave a perception of being more experienced. It’s nothing to do with “decades”. But good to know that in another five years you would seem very suitable to do the job I’ve trained so hard to do, even if I don’t have children. Because then I can say I’ve been qualified for “decades”.
Do you know how utterly ridiculous that is?

My experience of HVs has always been good/neutral but it would be interesting to know if other similar countries to the UK have a universal similar service to us or organise themselves differently and who has the best outcomes. I'm sure there's research on it somewhere!

Nothing to do with HVs but if I was in charge of the NHS I'd introduce a 36/37 week scan as standard, and spend more money on breastfeeding support rather than promotion.

i Believe improving services continually is needed and the best way to do that is by getting service user feedback. So I welcome people complaining and saying when they didn’t receive a good service.
What I do not condone is someone strongly advocating for a service to abolished or significantly changed without truly understanding the implications for children and families from all walks of life. It is dangerous to see life through your own bubble and not think about the consequences on others in different situations.

It would be incredibly helpful to have a large research piece done to examine if negative and positive experiences of the service are experienced in particular areas, from particular communities, when health visitors are from certain backgrounds. And then suggesting changes to provision based on that research. Not from a mumsnet discussion where positive experiences are barely acknowledged and those people in the profession today are expected to take responsibility for an experience which happened twenty years ago by a different practitioner.

All the negative experiences on here are awful and should not have happened and I’m sorry that you all experienced a negative interaction with someone who was there to support you. That should not have happened.

I am not quite sure where I said my obstetrician was not a father. Nor am I quite sure where he said he was qualified for decades.

He was a kindly gentleman who was the lead obstetrician at my local hospital. He was reaching retirement and had worked in obs and gynae at that hospital for more than 30 years. He looked after me admirably and ensured I had an excellent midwife when dd was born in stark contrast to ds1's birth at a different hospital. And yes, of course I thanked the midwives and him personally afterwards. My post natal experience was very different after dd was born. Two midwives only visited (rather than 4 plus two students the previous time), I knew what I was doing and had written to the head hv to inform them I was opting out of the service. I was not ill after dd was born because I ensured I only received competent care.

The fact that you have extrapolated something I have not said from my posts is a concern. It is a significant concern in relation to my concerns about the quality of the hv service. You are reading what you want to read and interpreting what you wish to see rather than the facts. You have cherry picked and ignored much of what i have written.

@ohtheroses

Please do not say it is a concern I have extrapolated something you didn’t say. Here

What I do not condone is someone strongly advocating for a service to abolished or significantly changed without truly understanding the implications for children and families from all walks of life. It is dangerous to see life through your own bubble and not think about the consequences on others in different situations

Absolutely @Feelinggoodashell

In all my time as a HV I've had an awful lot of positive feedback. I've supported many mothers with post-natal depression. I visited one lady for months and months. Her baby had died and she couldn't have any more children. She told me that my visits kept her going. Another lady I visited had suffered a horrendous birth with her twins and she had awful scars to prove it. She could no longer bear to have her husband near her and her marriage was on the rocks. I visited her, at her request, once a week for weeks and weeks.

These are commonplace visits for HVs, along with all the other stuff such as child protection visits, running clinics, supporting with breastfeeding, sleep, weaning, behaviour management, toilet training etc. On my return to the office I always had numerous telephone calls to deal with, asking for help.

Many parents do value the service and that's the reality of it. I think it's like anything. You only read about people who want to complain.

I forgot to mention that the so called expert GPs, rely heavily on HVs to guide them around child health. HVs have far more training that any GP and many are now nurse prescribers.

HVs have far more training around child health issues, is what I should have said.

My son used to LOVE bananas, I asked HV if there was a point that he was having too many due to the potassium, her answer was that the supermarket gas other fruit if I looked, I was so patronised.
I also expressed concern at my toddlers lack of speech and she told me to say 2 words to him such as ‘close door’ ‘open gate’ I was dumbfounded. Turned out my son had a structural abnormality and weak tongue and mouth muscles, he required surgery and grommets and speech and language therapy, no thanks to HV who refused to make a referral as I obviously wasn’t speaking to him enough (he was the most spoken to child ever!)
All my mum friend used to laugh as favourite HV phrase used to be ‘keep a wee eye on it’

I had a mixed bag of HV. Some rubbish, some truly amazing. I preferred the community midwives though.

Sadly the 2 great hv I had both visited me on their last day before retiring!

I honestly dont know why I have followed this thread as I have found it personally so upsetting. I poured my heart and soul into supporting parents the best I could and always only on their agenda. These relationships were sadly occasionally jeopardised in cases where there was child cruelty, and there was some including a murder. I have walked alongside women trying to gather up the strength to leave a violent partner, those who can barely function due to depression, neither of these would be rescued in a targetted service. I am sorry so many of you have felt badly advised, patronised etc but you aren't going to die from that are you? The very origins of Health Visiting were middle class women teaching women in the slums to keep their babies healthy. Maybe from this has evolved this perception of being checked up on. The child protection part of the job exacerbates this view. When Mn first came on the scene I encouraged internet savvy mothers to use it. I never guessed how very nasty it could be. Thats the Mice with Megaphones for you. Every troll has vice/voice.

@Feelinggoodashell
I did a small study based on families experiences and perceptions in our area. It was a no holds barred satisfaction questionnaire. People who think the service is ok but dont feel strongly either way, tend to have a lower uptake. In fact is was quite well received and the percentage of the caseloads who responded was good. The questionnaires were in no way leading and there was plenty of opportunity for complaint. A small amount complained similarly to here, but it was small. all were asked if they would like a follow up which sevaral did take up, some through us, and one through PALS and it was good to be able to hear and explore the issues which I hope helped. Of the families that valued the service, most had had issues ranging from mild to very serious, significant sleep deprivation extreme behaviour worries. It does seem to me that many of the posters here had differing needs, some inadequately supported, some not in any need at all. I am not taking this thread as accurately representing views. even the title will attract certain readers and not others

Most of the comments on here aren't nasty - they're just critical- there's a clear difference. There's also no need to try and defend your position by accusing people of being trolls. The 'Mice With Megaphones' comment is unnecessary and I'm speechless about the "you aren't going to die from it" comment

What about the shedloads of leaflets they leave you with? So annoying when you have twins as they leave you with two of every leaflet even though they are exactly the bloody same!!

Pure back-covering exercise so they can tick a box and leaves me with loads more recycling and crap I don't want! No common sense there at all.

I am sorry so many of you have felt badly advised, patronised etc but you aren't going to die from that are you?
My friend with a severely milk allergic baby was told to give lumps of cheese when weaning.

I'm sorry that the HVs on this thread feel so targeted and attacked, I'm not surprised, it must be hard reading when so many have been so badly let down by your colleagues.

But to call women who have had a bad experience with HVs trolls, say they're lying, and be dismissive of their experience..seems...I don't know, proving the point a bit? 😬

I am not taking this thread as accurately representing views, even the title will attract certain readers and not others

I quite agree with you @NoMorePoliticsPlease

But to call women who have had a bad experience with HVs trolls, say they're lying, and be dismissive of their experience..seems...I don't know, proving the point a bit

The trouble is, this is the internet not the real world. As everyone knows Mumsnet is alive with trolls, so it's hard to know what to take seriously.

Back in real life, over my health visitor career I've had two families not want me as their HV, just two, out of thousands I've helped.

The two I refer to, were both on child protection plans. Unfortunately, these days, HVs are becoming increasingly involved with child protection. My role in these two cases was very much surveillance rather than what I had trained for originally.

I don't think I want to live in a society where you're simply expected to cheerfully put up with anything that (probably) won't kill you but which can be degrading, humiliating, patronising, upsetting and/or traumatising - even being given bad or harmful unsolicited advice - without complaining or otherwise risk being called a troll.

If there are a great many concerns within a profession, surely the good people would want to identify and eliminate the bad ones, rather than closing ranks, making excuses for them and just calling anybody who raises concerns nasty names and trying to shame them into shutting up.

Just think how much less uncomfortable some of the rank racists in the Met and the CPS would have been made to feel if only Doreen Lawrence and others hadn't insisted on continuing to 'make a scene' about what happened to her poor son. I would have hoped that the non-racist people in those organisations would have been overjoyed that justice was finally done and those acting grossly unprofessionally brought to book. Reading this thread, though, I'm starting to wonder.

There was a similar furore a few years back, when David Cameron was talking about deadbeat dads, who walk away and take no responsibility for their children at all. A whole lot of devoted separated fathers apparently took immense offence to this and demanded that he apologise for calling them something which he clearly never had.

I am not taking this thread as accurately representing views, even the title will attract certain readers and not others

Are you also doubting all of the people reporting very positive experiences with their HVs, or only the ones whose reports you don't like?

The fact is that, although you may be the best HV in the world, you have NOT had direct experience of most other HVs in the country - yet you still presume to suggest that all of the women who have had direct experience of certain HVs are lying about their experiences?

In many areas the routine stuff such as development checks, clinics, transfer in visits etc are done by support staff ie nursery nurses or health care assistants. HV's focus on complex cases and manage the team.
Not everyone realises this and thinks they're seeing a HV, especially when the name badge says Health Visiting Team.

And in sure you, and the other HVs on this thread are wonderful Barmymammy But equally, there are enough with outdated, dreadful, dangerous advice. Those who don't help, those who make a mother feel like shit, those who patronise, those who, when you beg (and I did) for help or a referral, say "I'm not sure what you want me to do about it, I'm not specially trained" and then walk off I cried . I took my mother with me to a few weight in clinics as she didn't believe me when I said it was messing with my head having to go. It was such a shame, I was eager and ready to engage, I got more help and advice from MN.

I'm planning on TTC again and the HV who came to do my DCs 2 year check seemed brilliant, so my previous negative experience won't stop me from using the service again (I'm in a different area now, so different HV team).

I think if there had been a thread entitled "My HV is fantastic, I'm so grateful to her" then you'd get the same kind of replies, there have been both positive and negative on here.