Chapter 18 References

Page 345: Arguments for universal access but selective programme
Hart, T. (2000). Effect of socioeconomic deprivation on waiting time for cardiac surgery: retrospective cohort study. Commentary; Three decades of the Inverse Care law. BMJ, 320(7226), 18-19.
Frankenburg WK. Preventing developmental delays: is developmental screening sufficient?Pediatrics 1994;93:586-593.
For discussion of the Denver test, see: Frankenburg, W.K. (1994). Preventing developmental delays: is developmental screening sufficient? Pediatrics, 93, 586?593; Frankenburg, W.K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Shapiro, H., & Bresnick, B. (1992). The Denver II: a major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test Pediatrics, 89, 91?97.
Green M. – Bright Futures: guidelines for the health supervision of infants, children and adolescents. Arlington, VA: National Centre for Education in Maternal and Child Health., 1994; Web site, www.brightfutures.org
‘Jacqui Smith’s letter of 28th January 2002 to Chief Executives of PCTs entitled “Child Protection Responsibilities of Primary Care Trusts is at www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/point.nsf/66b6f04bdca6defc0025693b0051ada0/87e9e68e9d3e76540025
6b520036d3f5/$FILE/ChildProtectionRespPCTs.PDF
Article on child health surveillance in primary care – Hampshire AJ, Blair ME, Crown NS, Avery AJ, Williams EI. Assessing the quality of preschool child health surveillance in primary care: a pilot study in one health district. Child Care Health Dev. 2002 May;28(3):239-49

Page 359: Arguments for universal access but selective programme
Go to https://pubmed.oupjournals.org/content/vol22/issue3/index.shtml

High quality primary care for children
Specialist Health Services for Children and Young People. A Guide for Primary Care Organisations. January 2003. www.rcpch.ac.uk/publications/recent_publications/PCOs.pdf

Workload allocation of health visitors – Sheffield data
‘Health visitor practice development resource pack’ – the health visitor and school nurse development programme. Department of Health 2001.www.doh.gov.uk/cno/healthvisitorsdevpack.pdf . A similar pack is available for school nurses atwww.doh.gov.uk/cno/schoolnursedevpack.pdf
‘Domiciliary health visiting’ health technology assessment 2000, 4, no. 13.Ciliska, D., Hayward, S., Thomas, H, Mithcell-DiCenso, A., Dobbins, M., Underwood, J., and Martin, E. Effectiveness of home visiting as a delivery strategy for public health nursing interventions: systematic overview. Available at: www.hiru.mcmaster.ca/OHCEN/groups/hthu/94-7.htm. 1996.

Article by Bowns et al.
Collins SE, Haining RP, Bowns IR, Crofts DJ, Williams TS, Rigby AS, Hall DMB. Errors in postcode to enumeration district mapping and their effect on small area analyses of health data. J Publ Health Med. 1998, 20(3): 325-30.
Bowns IR, Crofts DJ, Williams TS, Rigby AS, Hall DMB, Haining RP. Levels of satisfaction of low risk mothers with their current health visiting service. J Adv Nursing 2000; 31: 805-11Crofts DJ, Bowns IR, Williams TS, Rigby AS, Haining RP, Hall DMB. Hitting the target – equitable distribution of health visitors across caseloads. J Publ Health Med 2000; 22: 295-301

Health visiting and community profiling
The difficult issue of attitudes to health visiting by families is discussed in: Dingwall, R. & Robinson, K. (1993). Policing the family? Health visiting and the public surveillance of private behaviour. In A. Beattie, M. Gott, L. Jones & M. Sidell (Eds.). Health and wellbeing: A ReaderBasingstoke: Macmillan.
The tasks of health visiting are reviewed in a collection of papers in: Health Visitors’ Association (1994). A power of good: health visiting in the 1990s. HVA, London.
The difficulty in defining need and vulnerability are discussed in: Waterfield, J. (1995). Health visiting and children in need. An interim report. In preparation, (in press) and Appleton, J.V. (1994). The concept of vunerability in relation to child protection; Health Visitors perceptions.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 165175.
Fonagy P, Steele M, Steele H, Higgitt A, Target M. (1994) The theory and practice of resilience.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-83. (Discusses the important idea that children differ in their ability to cope with adversity).
Health visitors’ intuition as a concept was recognised and shown to be valid in a classic study: Neligan, G.A., Prudham, D. and Steiner, H. (1974). The Formative Years. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust / OUP, Oxford.
A Canadian study investigated how health visitors make decisions: Chalmers, K.I. (1993). Searching for health needs: the work of health visiting. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 900-11.
See also: Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. In Basic Books, New York; and Benner, P., Tanner, C., & Chesla, C. (1992). From beginner to expert: Gaining a differentiated clinical world in critical care nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 14, 13-28.
The concept of “worthiness” is discussed in the article by Chalmers (op.cit.).
Profiling relies on a range of local data. See: Blackburn, C. (1993). Poverty Profiling. London: Health Visitors Association; Reading, R., Openshaw, S., & Jarvis, S. (1994). Are multidimensional social classifications of areas useful in UK health service research? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 48, 192?200; Majeed, F.A., Cook, D.G., Poloniecki, J., and Martin, D. (1995). Using data from the 1991 census. British Medical Journal 310, 1511-5.
The following deal with specific topics related to targetting: Hodgkin, R. (1994). Government plans for travellers. Children and Society 8, 274-7; Edwards, R. (1992). Coordination, fragmentation, and definitions of need: the new under fives initiative and homeless families. Children and Society6, 336-52; Aldridge, J., and Becker, S. (1993). Punishing children for caring: the hidden cost of young carers. Children and Society 7, 376-87; Statham J., and Cameron, C. (1994). Young children in rural areas: implementing the Children Act. Children and Society 8, 17-30; Kumar, V. (1993). Poverty and inequality in the UK: the effects on children. National Children’s Bureau, London; Tymchuk, A.J. (1992). Predicting adequacy of parenting by people with mental retardation. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 165-78.
Rural health and Rural White Paper: The rural affairs minister Alun Michael, addressed a conference recently (end of 2002) on this theme. See www.ncb.org.uk
The Audit Commission recommended that health visiting should be more targetted: Audit Commission (1994). Seen but not heard: coordinating community child health and social services for children in need. HMSO, London. (para 118, page 39). Executive summary is availalble at ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/publications/community_and_mental_health.shtml.

Health visiting in France
For the contrast with France, see: Foster, M. (1994). ‘Droit de Regard au Nom de l’Etat’: The Juge des Enfants and Child Protection in France. Children & Society, 8, 200-217.

Para-professionals
Larner M, Halpern R, Harkavy O. 1992. Fair start for children. Yale University Press, New Haven.
See also various papers on “community mothers”.

Gillick competence and why it has changed it’s name to Fraser
The term ‘Gillick competence’ has now been replaced by ‘Fraser guidelines’ after Lord Fraser, the Law Lord who set out the criteria for deciding competence.

Correction for prematurity
· In 1947, Gesell and Amatruda recommended that full correction for prematurity should be made when assessing the development of preterm infants. This seemed logical and is the usual practice.
· Normative data for available developmental tests were obtained on populations of mainly fulk,term or slightly pre-term infants. The relevance of these data to very preterm infants is uncertain.
· If full correction is made for prematurity in the very pre-term infant, some infants with unequivocal motor abnormalities will have developmental quotients within the normal range. In other words, if developmental assessment is considered as a ‘screening test’ for cerebral palsy, the sensitivity is greater if no correction is made; specificity is greater if full correction is made.
· In the first year of life, for infants with no identifiable neurological deficit, prediction of IQ at age 5 is slightly better if scores corrected for prematurity are used; thereafter, prediction is better if uncorrected age is used.
· From the primary care team’s perspective, there are two practical points. First, interpretation of developmental assessment in very preterm infants is difficult and usually needs specialist help. Second, concerns about development in general and motor development in particular in these infants should not be dismissed as being due solely to prematurity.