LA CONFRONTACIÓN DE ALTERNATIVAS PARA LA

gave or received a general outline

1

• one eajLue e luutK uerore and I had to work out the priorities and objectives of visiting’; (H\/) ’•••I give her the case notes and leave

her for about an hour with them’, (FWT)

Although not significantly higher than the PUT informants, a larger proportion of recently qualified HVs (56*4 per cent) reported that uheir rieldwork teachers had given them ’extra’ information not in the

% records regarding the family backgrounds of study families: as over\ against 44*5 per cent of FUT informants reporting this to be the case

? 2 ’

O S ” = 2*392 where ~ 3*640), FUT informants stated that they \

normally selected families with whom they had worked for some time and

consequently knew very well. Discrepancies in student/teacher accounts

are explicable in terms of this intimate knowledge. Thus a great deal ^

/ of the FldT’s background information is so familiar to her that it re­

mains unrecorded. In subsequent discussions with a health visitor "

student concerning the family, it .is possible to impart a certain, amount of unrecorded information without realising that there is in fact no record of these apparently peripheral details.

4.36 Four (3*5 per cent) of FUT informants stated that they give little or no prior information because they feel that students learn more by being self-reliant in this respect:

’...I don’t tell them everything because it’s part of this training to find out for themselves’;

’...not a great deal of help before visits...it was experimental... I just had to go and see what came up...we discussed it when I got back*

However, at least one recently qualified HU felt that her fieldwork teacher ’witheld’ information for a more suspect reason(l):

*•••1

Students may indeed learn a great deal by »discovery* methods: but this unsupoorted state may cause the student undue stress:

* ...I dealt with it on my own and I learnt an awful lot through doing it.*,but I really could have done with more support*.

4*^7 PARTICIPATION BY STUDENT: Views conflicted as to whether or not a student should * participate* during a home visit with her field­

work reacher. The somewhat limiting nature of *pure* observation has

been discussed above (cf. Para. 4.31): but equally the fieldwork teacher

i

is undeniably responsible for the professional outcomes of the visit in addition to its educational outcomes, and with this in mind student participation may need to be carefully phased:

*...1

a house...I took a student into a house

once and the child had bruises and the student looked... and walked past... that made me think what could have happ­ ened ... students can ask me what they like but outside*.

Nevertheless in the majority of circumstances, the FhJTJs encouragement to participate would seem both desirable for, and much appreciated by, her student:

*...my fieldwork teacher did the intro­ duction and *main visit* then asked my opinion on a few things, that was nice

because it let the family know I knew

something even if it wasn*t much! *J *...at the beginning I started to join in

conversations then I suddenly wondered if I should...I asked my fieldwork teacher, she said **..go ahead...I don*t mind

*1

I was allowed...I say allowed because I heard that some fieldwork teachers demand­ ed s i l e n c e l *.

Because of the dual educational-professional role of ths fieldwork teacher previously discussed (cf. Para. 1.20} there are obviously occasions when students can neither participate nor accompany their fislriwork teacher in certain heme visits. Students need to be aware of this possibility and to understand ths reasons for such a passible prohibition:

*...in ths early days if crises come up,

I say .stick with rae, keep your mouth \ shut and oars open! ***$

’...she would say

**...1

explosive situation, but I will tell you all about it” *.

4.38 AUTONOMOUS ACTIVITIES: Visiting alone by the student health visitor usually commences with her * study families* after preliminary

introductions by the fieldwork teacher. These families hav® been

carefully selected by the fieldwork teacher (cf. Para. 4.51) and usually know that they are being ’studied*:

*...1 usually tell the families that I

won’t visit unless they or ths student asks*.

Thus, a student will be accompanied for the first and possibly second visit to a study family: and will continue to visit alone thereafter.

I

The fieldwork teacher visits only if it becomes necessary during the student’s period in collage or if a problem arises which requires her attention.

4#3g INCEPTION OF *S0L0* VISITS: Ths majority of student health visitors would appear to start unaccompanied visits to families other

or the beginning of the second terra (January)* Months of inception of these visits as reported by both professional sub-samples are shown in Table 4,10:

MONTH: RAW AND PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES:

FWTs (N-

101

(

11o):

12

20

8

12

2

2

0

8

2

1

1

0

TABLE 4*10: MONTH Of INCEPTION OF *S0LQ* VISITS TO

FAMILIES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR HEALTH

VISITING STUDIES (DATA FROM BOTH'PRO­