Nurse Training (Platt Report) (Hansard, 20 July 1966)

§ Mr. K. Robinson

After extensive consultations with hospital authorities, professional organisations and other interested bodies I have reached provisional conclusions and have discussed them with the General Nursing Council, who are statutorily responsible for nurse training. I am today meeting representatives of the Royal College of Nursing to discuss these provisional views with them.

The Platt Committee considered that the scheme of training they recommended would be applicable in the psychiatric as in the general field. But in some respects different considerations apply there and as the report is primarily concerned with general nurse training, and with it training for sick children's nursing, my views are related to that.

I agree with certain of the views expressed in the report ; for example that students of too wide a range of ability have to follow the same training courses, that some do not undergo a planned programme of practical training such as a student might expect, and that sometimes students are regarded as "pairs of hands" to the detriment of their training. I agree also that, though some wastage during training is unavoidable, there is an urgent need to reduce the present level of wastage.

I question a number of the diagnoses and suggested remedies in the Report. I think we need a minority of nurses of very high calibre for senior administrative and teaching posts but in general the average nurse is, in my view, of sufficient calibre for present and future needs. I question the Report's estimates of the necessary annual intake of students which would meet the likely need for registered nurses. Evidence is lacking for the view that a more academic course of training, with an entry requirement of five "0" levels, would prove attractive to most potential entrants, though some might prefer it. I see little merit in the proposal for nurse training schools separated from both hospitals and the educational system. This would tend to isolate the student nurse from hospital life ; it would not lessen conflict between the interests of students' training and the care of 110W patients and might indeed make it more difficult to resolve.

I have considered, in consultation with the General Nursing Council, what alter-native steps ought to be taken to combat the weaknesses which the Report rightly criticised and have reached the following provisional conclusions. While an immediate advance of the educational entrance standard to five "0" levels is not realistic the entrance level might be gradually raised ; more general achievement of two "0" levels is the first step. It is proposed to foster experimental schemes to find the best ways of training student nurses, taking into account the different needs of the average and the above average entrant. I believe more can be done to encourage senior staff to plan ahead the practical training of students and to take more general responsibility for it. I shall be considering the organisation and staffing problems involved with the General Nursing Council and with hospital authorities. Training schools, in my view, should ensure that each student understands, at least in outline, what her training programme will be over the three years. To combat the continuing dependence of many hospitals on the services of student nurses to the detriment of their proper training, I propose to ask hospital authorities to give continuing attention to this problem and to consider the need for balanced ward teams, and perhaps additional training schools for the Roll.

As to reducing wastage, I intend to ask hospital authorities, in association with Area Nurse Training Committees, to maintain records of wastage for individual schools and to see that where wastage is high the causes are fully investigated.