The interprofessional practitioner: changing professional identity in social work

Twenty years ago the first joint training programme in learning disability nursing and social work was established as a collaborative project to develop practitioners able to work holistically with people with learning disabilities. Since then a number of programmes have continued this work and more recently the approach has developed in the mental health specialism. These programmes have changed the nature of singular social work education and created a new region of knowledge (Bernstein, 2000) for those who have experienced them. What began as a radical experiment in interprofessional education has been sustained by a strong commitment to the belief that the practitioners who qualify from such programmes are well equipped to support people with learning disabilities in changing and multi-professional services. As with much interprofessional education, however, there is an ongoing need to build an evidence base linking such education with successful outcomes in practice. This paper presents and explores the outcomes of a doctoral research study aimed at evaluating the impact of joint training in learning disability nursing and social work on the professional identity, skills and working practices of practitioners who undertook it. The research was undertaken with almost fifty jointly trained practitioners and involved a national survey followed by semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that practitioners who experience the dual socialisation inherent in this type of training found both gains and losses in the process. They appear to emerge, however, with a confidence, resilience and breadth of knowledge which were part of the early vision for this transformative approach to professional training. Bernstein B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Revised Edition. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (USA).

Fluoridation for dental public health

This article reviews the means by which fluoride is supplied to populations. Many public health authorities provide fluoridated drinking water, with typical concentrations of fluoride of between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm. This has been found to be safe and effective, though differences in caries incidence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions are less than they were 50 years ago, because of the wider availability of fluoridated products to the whole population. Concerns about the effect of fluoride on bone density and associated conditions are reviewed and the general conclusion from considering the literature on fluoride is that there is almost no cause for concern. Alternatives to water as a means of delivering fluoride to the general public that are being used in a number of countries are salt and milk. These alternatives are also reviewed and have been shown to give satisfactory levels of protection against caries, though milk is shown to be less satisfactory than water as a vehicle for fluoride delivery. Milk is also less effective in providing fluoride to individuals in the population, and is less likely to be consumed by people in lower socio-economic groups, precisely those who suffer most from dental caries. This study concludes that mass water fluoridation remains an important contribution to good oral health throughout the community.