DOCSLIB.ORG

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS of PRISON HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS for BETTER GOVERNANCE Abstract

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS of PRISON HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS for BETTER GOVERNANCE Abstract ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS OF PRISON HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS FOR BETTER GOVERNANCE Abstract There is currently a variety of models of prison health accountability across the WHO European Region. The WHO Regional Office for Europe recommends that leadership should come from health ministries if health equity between prisons and the outside community is to be achieved. Most importantly, a whole- of-government approach is required to improve the quality of health services in prisons. This policy brief describes the governance and organizational models for prison health adopted by three European countries – Finland, Portugal and England. Each of these has a different arrangement in place, either under the Ministry of Health or under the Ministry of Justice working in partnership with the Ministry of Health. Those that have undergone a change in governance model have done so at different moments and adopted a different approach to implementing the change. Each of the three countries is considered separately, then similarities and differences between them are highlighted. Finally, recommendations are given for countries considering making a transition in the governance model that will improve the health services provided and the health status of people in prison. Keywords PRISONS PRISONERS GLOBAL HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH HEALTH SERVICES HEALTH POLICY HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY RIGHT TO HEALTH HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CLINICAL GOVERNANCE MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL Document number: WHO/EURO:2020-1268-41018-55685 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Suggested citation. Organizational models of prison health. Considerations for better governance. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris. Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing. Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user. General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use. Photos: ©WHO/Enf. Jorge Tavares. Contents Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations v 1. Background 1 2. Finland 2 2.1 General presentation of prison and health-care system 2 2.1.1 Main actors 2 2.1.2 Coordination between the main actors 2 2.1.3 Historical perspectives 4 2.2 Characteristics of prisons and people in prison 4 2.3 Delivery of care 5 2.3.1 Introduction 5 2.3.2 Availability 6 2.3.3 Range of services provided, including for specific health issues and specific groups 6 2.3.4 Continuity of care 6 2.3.5 Quality of care 7 2.3.6 Patients’ rights 7 2.3.7 Financial aspects 7 2.3.8 Health coverage in prison – costs 7 2.3.9 Health information 7 2.4. Evidence on the impact of changing the governance model 8 3. Portugal 9 3.1 General presentation of prison and health-care system 9 3.1.1 Main actors 9 3.1.2 Coordination between the main actors 9 3.1.3 Historical perspectives 9 3.2 Characteristics of prisons and people in prison 11 3.3 Delivery of care 12 3.3.1 Introduction 12 3.3.2 Availability 12 3.3.3 Range of services provided, including for specific health issues and specific groups 13 3.3.4 Continuity of care 14 3.3.5 Quality of care 15 3.3.6 Patients’ rights 15 3.3.7 Financial aspects 15 3.3.8 Health coverage in prison – costs 15 3.3.9 Health information 15 3.4 Evidence on the impact of changing the governance model 16 4. England 17 4.1 General presentation of prison and health-care system 17 4.1.1 Main actors 17 4.1.2 Coordination between the main actors 17 4.1.3 Historical perspectives 20 4.2 Characteristics of prisons and people in prison 22 4.3 Delivery of care 23 4.3.1 Introduction 23 4.3.2 Availability 23 4.3.3 Range of services provided, including for specific health issues and specific groups 24 4.3.4 Continuity of care 25 4.3.5 Quality of care 25 4.3.6 Patients’ rights 25 4.3.7 Financial aspects 26 4.3.8 Health coverage in prison – costs 26 4.3.9 Health information 26 4.4. Evidence of impact 26 5. Discussion 29 6. Recommendations 31 7. Conclusion 33 References 35 III Acknowledgements The development of this publication was coordinated by Filipa Alves da Costa, Consultant, WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases, under the guidance of Carina Ferreira-Borges, Programme Manager, Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Prison Health, WHO Regional Office for Europe. The WHO Regional Office for Europe is very grateful for the important contributions received from Hanna Hemminki-Salin, Chief Physician of Outpatient Services, Health Care Services for Prisoners, Finland; Mafalda Vieira de Castro, Public Health Physician, Directorate-General of Prison and Reintegration Services, Portugal; Merja Mikkola, Development Manager, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland; Rui Manuel Ramos Morgado, Coordinating Physician for the Directorate- General of Prison and Reintegration Services, Consultant Physician in Family and General Medicine, Portugal; and Sunita Stürup-Toft, Public Health England and United Kingdom Collaborating Centre for WHO Health In Prisons Programme, United Kingdom. We are also very thankful for the comments received from Ihor Perehinets, Technical Adviser, Division of Health Systems and Public Health, and Ogtay Gozalov, Tuberculosis Programme in the Division of Communicable Diseases, Health Security & Environment at WHO Europe. The document received important contributions in terms of structure, content and format from Sunita Stürup-Toft, Public Health England and UK Collaborating Centre for WHO Health In Prisons Programme, United Kingdom. We would also like to thank Nino Berdzuli, Director, Division of Country Health Programmes, and João Breda, Head, WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases, for their overall leadership and support for the development of this report. The publication was made possible by funding from the Government of Finland. IV Abbreviations ART antiretroviral therapy AVI Regional State Administrative Agency (Finland) CCGCS Centre of Competencies for the Management of Health Care(Portugal) DGRSP Directorate-General of Prison and Reintegration Services (Direção Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais) (Portugal) DHSC Department of Health and Social Care (United Kingdom) DSS Direction of Health Services (Portugal) GP general practitioner HBV hepatitis B virus HCV hepatitis C virus HMPPS Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (United Kingdom) INSA National Health Institute Dr Ricardo Jorge (Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge) (Portugal) LGBTQ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer NCD noncommunicable disease NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom) NHS National Health Service (United Kingdom) OST opioid substitution therapy P-NHS Portuguese National Health System PHE Public Health England SPMS Shared Services of the Ministry of Health (Serviços Partilhados do Ministério da Saúde) (Portugal) TB tuberculosis THL Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos) VTH Unit for Prisoners’ Health Services (Vankiterveydenhuollon yksikkö) (Finland) V 1. Background Since 2013, as set out in the policy brief Good governance for prison health in the 21st century, WHO and partners have recognized that states have a special, sovereign duty of care for people in prison (1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence from the United Kingdom and International Comparisons
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2016 Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence From the United Kingdom and International Comparisons Laura Kelly University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, and the Epidemiology Commons Recommended Citation Kelly, Laura, "Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence From the United Kingdom and International Comparisons" (2016). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1806. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1806 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1806 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Three Essays on the Behavioral, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Determinants of Mortality: Evidence From the United Kingdom and International Comparisons Abstract This dissertation contains three chapters covering the impact of behavioral, socioeconomic, and geographic determinants of health and mortality in high-income populations, with particular emphasis on the abnormally high mortality in Scotland, and the relative advantages of indirect and direct analyses in estimating national mortality. Chapter one identifies behavioral risk factors underlying mortality variation across small-areas in Great Britain, using the indirect estimation
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing and Immediate Custody in Wales: a Factfile
    Sentencing and Immediate Custody in Wales: A Factfile Dr Robert Jones Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University January 2019 Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would especially like to thank Lucy Morgan for all of her help in producing this report. I would also like to thank staff working at the Ministry of Justice who have responded to the many requests for information made during the course of this research. Finally, I am extremely grateful to Alan Cogbill, Emyr Lewis, Ed Poole, Huw Pritchard and Richard Wyn Jones for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this report. ABOUT US The Wales Governance Centre is a research centre that forms part of Cardiff University’s School of Law and Politics undertaking innovative research into all aspects of the law, politics, government and political economy of Wales, as well the wider UK and European contexts of territorial governance. A key objective of the Centre is to facilitate and encourage informed public debate of key developments in Welsh governance not only through its research, but also through events and postgraduate teaching. In July 2018, the Wales Governance Centre launched a new project into Justice and Jurisdiction in Wales. The research will be an interdisciplinary project bringing together political scientists, constitutional law experts and criminologists in order to investigate: the operation of the justice system in Wales; the relationship between non-devolved and devolved policies; and the impact of a single ‘England and Wales’ legal system. CONTACT DETAILS Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, 21 Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3DQ. Web: http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/ ABOUT THE AUTHOR Robert Jones is a Research Associate at the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University.
    [Show full text]
  • The Four Health Systems of the United Kingdom: How Do They Compare?
    The four health systems of the United Kingdom: how do they compare? Gwyn Bevan, Marina Karanikolos, Jo Exley, Ellen Nolte, Sheelah Connolly and Nicholas Mays Source report April 2014 About this research This report is the fourth in a series dating back to 1999 which looks at how the publicly financed health care systems in the four countries of the UK have fared before and after devolution. The report was commissioned jointly by The Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust. The research team was led by Nicholas Mays at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The research looks at how the four national health systems compare and how they have performed in terms of quality and productivity before and after devolution. The research also examines performance in North East England, which is acknowledged to be the region that is most comparable to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of socioeconomic and other indicators. This report, along with an accompanying summary report, data appendices, digital outputs and a short report on the history of devolution (to be published later in 2014), are available to download free of charge at www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/compare-uk-health www.health.org.uk/compareUKhealth. Acknowledgements We are grateful: to government statisticians in the four countries for guidance on sources of data, highlighting problems of comparability and for checking the data we have used; for comments on the draft report from anonymous referees and from Vernon Bogdanor, Alec Morton and Laura Schang; and for guidance on national clinical audits from Nick Black and on nursing data from Jim Buchan.
    [Show full text]
  • Same Difference a Comparison of International Health Systems England • U.S
    SAME DIFFERENCE A COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS ENGLAND • U.S. • GERMANY INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................01 HEALTHCARE IN ENGLAND, THE U.S. AND GERMANY ....................................................02 THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 08 COMMISSIONING RESPONSES .................................................................................. 13 CASE STUDY: UK........................................................................................................ 15 CHANGING CARE MODELS: PROVIDERS .......................................................... 16 CASE STUDY: U.S. .............................................................................................20 CHANGING CARE MODELS: PRIMARY CARE ............................................22 TECHNOLOGY ..........................................................................................24 CASE STUDY: GERMANY .....................................................................26 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................28 UNDERSTANDING THE TERMS WE USE ...................................30 REFERENCES ............................................................................ 31 PRODUCED BY THE BDO CENTRE FOR GLOBAL HEALTHCARE EXCELLENCE & INNOVATION NOVEMBER 2016 A COMPARISON OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS | SAME DIFFERENCE 01 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Dental-Service-Spec-Prisons-2020.Pdf
    Service specification Dental service for prisons in England 2020 NHS England and NHS Improvement 1 NHS England and NHS Improvement Publishing Approval Reference: 001181 Contents 1. How to use this document ................................................................................... 3 2. The model ............................................................................................................ 4 3. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 4. Guiding principles ................................................................................................ 8 5. Core service delivery ......................................................................................... 11 5.1 Service vision .................................................................................................. 11 5.2 Days and hours of operation ........................................................................... 13 5.3 Service availability ....................................................................................... 13 5.4 Inclusion criteria .......................................................................................... 14 5.5 Exclusion criteria ......................................................................................... 14 5.6 Equivalence for services in prisons ............................................................. 14 5.7 Setting ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Accessing Healthcare in Other Countries of the European Economic Area by the S2 (E112) Route
    Accessing Healthcare in England If you are registered with a general practitioner in Scotland then you are entitled to free NHS care arranged by NHS Scotland. Generally that care will be provided as close to home as possible and within your own NHS Board area but care may be provided elsewhere in NHS Scotland if that is clinically necessary. NHS England runs a different financial system involving internal charging between “providers” (NHS Trusts) and “commissioners” (NHS Primary Care Trusts) for health care services. Residents of Scotland who are registered with a GP in Scotland will always be entitled to emergency care anywhere in the UK but are not automatically entitled to access elective (planned) NHS care in England as NHS providers will expect to invoice NHS Scotland for providing that service. Before providing elective services to patients registered within NHS Scotland, a provider Trust is therefore required to obtain advance financial consent from the relevant NHS Scotland Board. Where a patient wishes to access routine healthcare in England for social reasons such as studying or working in England or staying with relatives for a period longer than a normal holiday then we would strongly recommend that the patient registers with a local general practitioner in England which will entitle them to access their routine NHS care including community services from NHS England. Where it is necessary for clinical reasons to refer a patient to a specialist service in England because that service is not available in NHS Scotland then this is usually funded through national agreements managed by NHS National Services Division in Edinburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality in the New Health System ‐ Maintaining and Improving Quality from April 2013
    Quality in the new health system ‐ Maintaining and improving quality from April 2013 A draft report from the National Quality Board Final Report, January 2013 3 Contents Foreword 1. Introduction 6 2. Our common purpose 13 – improving quality and delivering better outcomes 3. Our shared values and behaviours 21 – putting patients and service users first 4. Our distinct roles and responsibilities for quality 25 5. How we will work together to maintain quality 51 – spotting the early signs of failure – judging when there has been a quality failure – responding when things go wrong 6. Making it happen 57 4 Foreword The Health and Social Care Act 2012 is fundamentally changing the way the NHS, public health and care system in England is organised and run. Over the past two years, there has been much debate about these changes. This debate has often been emotive, polarised and technical in nature, and the focus on quality has tended to be implicit rather than explicit. Yet improving the quality of care for patients and service users is the driving force behind these changes and is what unites us around a common purpose. The NHS is organising itself around a single definition of quality: care that is effective, safe and provides as positive an experience as possible. This simple, yet powerful definition that arose out of the NHS Next Stage Review has now been enshrined in legislation. It lies at the heart of the first ever NHS Outcomes Framework and continues to help unite the ambitions and motivations of staff with the hopes of patients and the expectations of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating What the UK Can Learn from the French Model of Healthcare Funding
    Investigating what the UK can learn from the French model of healthcare funding November 2018 Thomas Mills The UK is reaching a healthcare funding crisis. The population is ageing and there is strong demand for a process of modernisation.1 But the finances to ameliorate these problems are not available. The UK funding model cannot keep up with the financial demands of quality universal healthcare.2 Yet the system remains without serious proposals for reform. This report seeks to understand the ways in which healthcare in the UK is failing and how the method of funding may be responsible. The weaknesses of the oft-referenced US model should not stand as confirmation of the pre- eminence of the government-controlled system. The shortcomings of the American structure should serve only as a warning against shifting the majority of funding responsibility to the private sector. This comparison obscures the fact that an abundance of European nations have rejected the notion that universal healthcare must be funded through taxation. A significant number of countries with universal healthcare avoid using direct, unhypothecated taxation as their core funding mechanism. This includes Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and France. And given its similarities to the UK in foundational principles and domestic appreciation for the respective system, as well as its relative strengths, France shall be the nation under review. After exploring the key mechanisms, analysis will turn to the merits and drawbacks of the model. This will aid in assessing whether elements of the French healthcare funding system are suitable and effective enough to implement in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagine, a World Without DIS-EASE Is It Possible?
    Imagine, A World Without DIS-EASE – Is It Possible? Mark S. Grenon Imagine, A World Without DIS-EASE Is It Possible? Mark S. Grenon Volume One Copyright © 2018 Mark S. Grenon All rights reserved. ISBN-13: 978-1727749144 ISBN-10:1727749146 Imagine, A World Without DIS-EASE – Is It Possible? Mark S. Grenon In LOVING Memory of Bishop David “Maverick” Glover for his help and dedication to creating “a world without dis-ease”! Imagine, A World Without DIS-EASE – Is It Possible? Mark S. Grenon 100% of the proceeds from this book will be donated to the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing to support its workers and support official G2 Projects around the world to help create, “a world without dis-ease.” REAL SCIENCE: We at the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing have been involved in one of the most comprehensive, worldwide, cross cultural, broad spectrum, voluntary, human health studies of this world for the past 8 years. If you include Jim Humble and his studies in Africa, it has been almost 20 years. 95% of the world's diseases have been CURED with the Genesis II Church Protocols! No monies were received from any pharmaceutical/medical companies wanting a certain result. The people of this world who have followed the G2C protocols have not been paid in any way, but they have “self-dosed” themselves voluntarily. “Self-Care” is what is being taught and encouraged by the Genesis II Church worldwide and it is working incredibly well. Every person on this earth has the God-given right to control their own health and not rely on the pharmaceutical/medical industry.
    [Show full text]
  • NHS Long Term Plan (Pdf)
    Long-Term Plan Long-Term Plan Long-Term The NHS Long Term Plan Plan Long-Term Plan #NHSLongTermPlan www.longtermplan.nhs.uk [email protected] www.longtermplan.nhs.uk #NHSLongTermPlan January 2019 The NHS Long Term Plan 3 Contents THE NHS LONG TERM PLAN – OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY 6 CHAPTER 1: A NEW SERVICE MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 11 1. We will boost ‘out-of-hospital’ care, and finally dissolve the historic divide 13 between primary and community health services A new NHS offer of urgent community response and recovery support 14 Primary care networks of local GP practices and community teams 14 Guaranteed NHS support to people living in care homes 15 Supporting people to age well 16 2. The NHS will reduce pressure on emergency hospital services 18 Pre-hospital urgent care 19 Reforms to hospital emergency care – Same Day Emergency Care 21 Cutting delays in patients being able to go home 23 3. People will get more control over their own health and more personalised 24 care when they need it 4. Digitally-enabled primary and outpatient care will go mainstream 25 across the NHS 5. Local NHS organisations will increasingly focus on population health – 29 moving to Integrated Care Systems everywhere CHAPTER 2: MORE NHS ACTION ON PREVENTION AND HEALTH INEQUALITIES 33 Smoking 34 Obesity 36 Alcohol 38 Air pollution 38 Antimicrobial resistance 39 Stronger NHS action on health inequalities 39 CHAPTER 3: FURTHER PROGRESS ON CARE QUALITY AND OUTCOMES 44 A strong start in life for children and young people 45 Maternity and neonatal services 46 Children
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Provision in Wales
    House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee Prison provision in Wales Fourth Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30 April 2019 HC 742 Published on 17 May 2019 by authority of the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee The Welsh Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales). Current membership David T. C. Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) (Chair) Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Labour, Gower) Guto Bebb (Conservative, Aberconwy) Chris Davies MP (Conservative, Brecon and Radnorshire) Geraint Davies MP (Labour (Co-op), Swansea West) Jonathan Edwards MP (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) Susan Elan Jones MP (Labour, Clwyd South) Ben Lake MP (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion) Jack Lopresti (Conservative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Anna McMorrin MP (Labour, Cardiff North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/welshcom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • 70 NHS Years: a Celebration of 70 Influential Nurses and Midwives
    0 A celebration of 7 influential nurses NHS YEARS20 and midwives from 1948 to 18 In partnership with Seventy of the most influential nurses and midwives: 1948-2018 nursingstandard.com July 2018 / 3 0 7 years of nursing in the NHS Inspirational nurses and midwives who helped to shape the NHS Jane Cummings reflects on the lives of 70 remarkable As chief nursing officer for England, I am delighted figures whose contributions to nursing and to have contributed to this publication on behalf of midwifery are summarised in the following profiles, the CNOs in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and on the inspiration they provide as the profession identifying some of the most influential nurses and Jane Cummings meets today’s challenges midwives who have made a significant impact across chief nursing officer the UK and beyond. for England I would like to give special thanks to the RCNi As a nurse, when I visit front-line services and and Nursing Standard, who we have worked in meet with staff and colleagues across the country partnership with to produce this important reflection I regularly reflect on a powerful quote from the of our history over the past 70 years, and to its American author and management expert Ken sponsor Impelsys. Blanchard: ‘The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority.’ Tireless work to shape a profession I am a firm believer that everyone in our Here you will find profiles of 70 extraordinary profession, whatever their role, wherever they work, nursing and midwifery leaders. Many of them have has the ability to influence and be influenced by the helped shape our NHS.
    [Show full text]