Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

MARK RADCLIFFE

'Slices of policy handed down from a distance won’t restore nursing'

  • 2 Comments

One of the advantages of writing fiction as opposed to sociology, for example, is that fiction tends to invite a conversation whereas sociology often invites an argument.

There are other advantages obviously, in fiction you get to make stuff up, put jokes in and take account of the felt world; or the fact that people feel things, and what they do is often heavily influenced or designed by those feelings. In fact, given nursing takes place in a world full of feelings, it seems to me that fiction is in many respects the best method in which to explore it. However, I may be in a minority with that so we’ll probably be sticking with the sociology in the foreseeable future.

Anyway, over the last four weeks I have been doing readings and talks about my book Stranger Than Kindness. These talks have fallen into two categories. The ones for largely nursing-oriented audiences and the ones for everyone else. Because the book features damaged or hurt nurses at its heart, much of the conversation has been about nursing, so I am reporting it. Because lots of people have been telling me stuff and it feels appropriate to pass it on.

What emerged from the general public was an occasional and inherited irritation with nursing, which was often and usually quite powerfully slapped down by people with a faith in it. In one lovely northern library a lady said crossly that “nursing isn’t what it used to be because nurses didn’t care”, only to be told by two other ladies that nurses had just cared beautifully for their respective relatives and are too easy a target. Elsewhere someone moaned about nurses being “too clever” these days, only to be asked by someone whose daughter was a graduate nurse, when did clever become the enemy of good? In essence, the analysis of nursing is thin and designed by media mood until it becomes informed by personal experience. No surprise there.

Elsewhere among nurses however, it is unsurprisingly more reflective. The themes I talked about were less about restoring the profession’s reputation and more about restoring the nurse and that resonates with the nurses I met. Frankly, they felt unmoved by and unfamiliar with the 6Cs. Not because the words seemed hollow, but because it felt like an initiative being handed down from a distance alongside other slices of policy and expectation. It wasn’t experienced as an expression of sympathetic leadership but as an expression of managerialism.

And that reflection was not made with bitterness. There was warmth, humour and a fair bit of shrugging. We were sure that the leaders involved in trying to reinstigate the qualities of compassion and care are doing it authentically, but the problem seems to be the space between the “leaders” and the nurses and, more importantly, what occupies that space.

It seems to me that in order to help nurses feel valued and supported, and to begin to help restore them, because at heart lots and lots of nurses are tired and feeling a bit battered, we don’t need to just develop initiatives for them to follow so much, as ask them what is going to help. A good leader listens more than she talks.

It will surely come. Post-Francis, after the regulating, the hand-wringing, the punishing and the PR, we will get to the important question. What happened to the heart of the ineffective nurse and how can we help with that? It would be good if that question was addressed by leaders and grassroots nurses together in sympathy with each other.

Happy Christmas.

Mark Radcliffe is senior lecturer, and author of the new novel “Stranger than Kindness”. Follow him on twitter @markacradcliffe

  • 2 Comments

Readers' comments (2)

  • tinkerbell

    Thanks Mark for highlighting the 'space in between'. This may be the disconnect. The 6 c's are everything that the majority of nurses have without actually naming them, I'm fed up with zombie tickboxes. Have I got the 6 c's in abundance today? - check - then i'm good to go to work. We 'do' and then some other qualities are added without naming them that are also good and true sometimes it goes beyond words but someone thought they needed to be named so we could go 'back to our roots' I guess. Just in case we had lost our sense of purpose.

    The space in between 'the doers doing it and the sayers telling us what we should do when we are already doing it' is perhaps the smack in the chops that is perceived as the insult.

    If I relied on how I felt every day then I would have spent most of my career phoning in sick as would possibly most other staff who've been ridden too hard over many years.

    This destroy the name of nursing and then rebuild it with some care makers feels a bit of a gimmick.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • do we get a day off work then if we wake up in the morning and find with the best will in the world but in all honesty we simply cannot manage to tick off each and every one of the six C?

    society is so brain washed in all the US management theories now one begins to wonder what is normal and right anymore.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.