Search

In the article, the author discusses the two seasonal gifts announced by the British government for the medicine and nursing professions in 2012. The first gift is the one-off grant of 20 million pounds offered to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) to address its historic backlog of fitness-to-practise cases. The other gift is the scheduled start of the medical revalidation process with the General Medical Council (GMC) in December 2012.

The article examines the impact of an occupational health (OH) nursing and occupational medicine crisis thereby raising concerns on the future sustainability of a specialist workforce. A commentary by U.S.-based Nyla Medlock titled "Defining the future of physicians globally," noted that healthcare changes will result in a demand for primary care and clinical specialty medicine services. Medlock stated that many are retiring from the specialist workforce than are being trained to replace them.

The author examines the Boorman review, entitled "NHS Health and Wellbeing," published by the Great Britain National Health Service (NHS) in 2009. He believes that the report was important to occupational health because it contained a large number of recommendations that were significant to the future of specialist practice. He cites the appointment of regional specialists as stated in the report.

The author comments on the guidance issued by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and the General Medical Council (GMC) which raised and acted on concerns about patient safety in Great Britain. He argues that the guidance could increase the occupational health (OH) professionals' level of responsibility for employee health. He cites a survey which found that 80 percent of nurses had at some point raised concerns about care.

The author emphasizes the responsibility of occupational health (OH) professionals in training future generations of specialists to ensure that the increasing demand for OH professionals will be met. He describes the supply and demand status for OH in Great Britain as of February 2010. He also highlights the professional responsibilities of OH professionals, along with the challenges posed by training future OH practitioners.

The author discusses research insights that British occupational health (OH) professionals can learn from their counterparts in the U.S. He notes that valuable research material are being presented in U.S. conferences of the American Association of OH Nurses (AAOHN) and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). The author cites key topics of articles and papers that British OH professionals can use as reference including professional supervision, substance misuse, presenteeism, and the aging workforce.

The author discusses the preferred size of the occupational health (OH) specialist nursing workforce. He stresses that such measurement is difficult to determine due to the lack of a fully inclusive specialist register and a single specialist examinations body. He explains why OH is uniquely different, as most of the practitioners are not employed by the National Health Service. For the author, there is a need for consolidation across the OH provider market into bigger teams of OH specialist nurses working with teams of OH doctors.

The article emphasizes the need for nurses in Great Britain who are working in occupational health to advance their practice and pursue a Master's degree. It explores the legacy and the standards in occupational health (OH) nursing set by Florence Nightingale in line with the centenary of her death. It relates the expansion of nursing knowledge. It stresses that raising the standards in nursing would produce better informed nurses and would lead to better patient care.

The article reflects upon obesity and the responsibility of health care workers to set an example for the public. The author explores health behaviors of health professionals, the possibility of limiting practice in medicine and nursing for obese people, and the parameters for establishing fitness to work.

The article reflects upon the lack of evidence-based practice in occupational health nursing and guidelines from the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) covering absence from work due to illness. The author criticizes occupational health nurses for not engaging in research or contributing to the development of the NICE guidelines that determine practice.

The author comments on Part 3 of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register, which was designed to ensure that specialist community and public health nurses are safe to practice in Great Britain. He highlights the opinion of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) on Part 3. He argues that Part 3 has significant consequences for occupational health. He adds that Part 3 of the register has its advantages.

The article discusses the salaries of occupational health (OH) nurses in Great Britain. Between 2001 and 2005, average pay for consultant physicians rose by about 40%, or about five times the rate of inflation. OH specialist skills have been in short supply, so rapid salary inflation drove an unusually vibrant job market as employers competed for scarce resources. The shift of work from OH specialist physicians to nurses arises because physicians cannot persuasively demonstrate the added value of a salary three times greater.

The article reflects on the role of occupational health (OH) nurse practitioners in expanding OH services in Great Britain. OH practitioners should continue their OH involvement despite the lack of support from the government and employers. OH nurses tend to emphasize on stress and disease ignoring attendance, rehabilitation, performance and productivity. Despite their efforts, OH nurses should be blamed for the need of new strategy and absence of OH services.