9th September 2026
The current Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) call for evidence provides a rare and important opportunity for sharing evidence and reasons for why legal protection of the title ‘health visitor’, alongside that of ‘nurse’, is required. We urge all health visitors to support the call for evidence and ensure they make their contribution before 8 October 2026, when the consultation closes at 23:59hrs.
The name and title ‘health visitor’ is known and understood by the public and by other health and social care professionals. So much so that, even when removed from statute and replaced with Registered Specialist Community Public Health Nurse (SCPHN), the title ‘health visitor’ has continued to be used by practitioners, the public and employers to supplement or replace the regulated SCPHN title. This can still be seen in advertisements for employment or services.
The iHV actively supports the #ProtectNurse campaign. We believe that protecting the titles ‘nurse’ and ‘health visitor’ as part of the NMC’s legislative framework is necessary for strengthening patient safety, public confidence and respect for the professions – the same arguments that are being made to protect the title ‘nurse’ apply equally to protecting the title ‘health visitor’. Recent high profile cases have illustrated the tragic consequences that can result from professional misrepresentation and misinformation.
Protecting the title ‘health visitor’ is an opportunity to strengthen regulation for safety with consequences for the public, partners and practitioners. With one month to go before the public consultation closes on 8 October 2026, we explain more below:
- Public trust in what a title means and represents, impacts on the public’s engagement with publicly provided services. The public need confidence that those using the title health visitor are qualified, following completion of an approved educational programme – and with assurance that standards are maintained through ongoing professional regulation to protect the public. Trusting that practitioners are what they say they are, impacts on the public’s willingness to engage with and take advantage of important public health services for babies, children and families. Title protection provides transparency in the regulatory system, enabling the public to establish which professional body regulates health visitors.
- Partners working alongside health visitors across the integrated care system (ICS) with responsibility for services for families, children and babies must be able to differentiate between different members of the health visitor skill mix team. Those making referrals or liaising about individual children and families need clarity about the role, qualifications and scope of practice of the person with whom they are communicating, to ensure that information is received by individuals who are appropriately prepared to act and make safety-critical decisions.
This distinction is particularly important in light of the recognised concept of “unconscious incompetence”, derived from the conscious competence model, which describes a situation in which an individual lacks the requisite knowledge, skills or professional competence, while also being unaware of those limitations. In such circumstances, there is an increased risk that responsibilities may be accepted or assumed beyond an individual’s scope of practice.
Information in the hands of an individual who is not qualified or competent to assess, interpret or act upon it may pose a risk to public safety. Equally, a lack of awareness of the significance of emerging concerns can result in inaction or delayed escalation. For babies and children, delays in the recognition of health, developmental or safeguarding issues can lead to missed opportunities for early intervention and may adversely affect growth, development and long-term outcomes. Both actions taken beyond professional competence and failures to act appropriately have the potential to cause harm.
- Practitioner identity is affirmed via legitimate titles. A confirmed and legally recognised title helps secure the legitimacy of a role. For title holders it communicates value as well as expectations for a form of practice. The rationale for protecting the title ‘nurse‘ applies equally to ‘health visitor‘. Indeed, there is a stronger case for protection because the title ‘health visitor‘ does not contain the word “nurse” and therefore provides no immediate indication that the role is limited to registered professionals with a recognised specialist qualification. Statutory protection would safeguard the public by reducing the risk of confusion and ensuring that the title can only be used by appropriately qualified practitioners. Legally protecting a title also enables its use in different UK countries to mean and represent the same thing. These factors cited for health visitor practitioners collectively impact on the ‘brand’ and thus have consequences for workforce recruitment and retention.
It is our belief that inclusion of the title ‘health visitor’ within the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) legislative framework would affirm the distinction between the roles of nurse and health visitor and would encourage the naming of health visitors within policy documents or datasets. Currently health visitors are often conflated as part of nursing workforces and thereby invisible. Title protection supports transparency in different levels and forms of practice. In a future context where team members have different protected titles (health visitor, nurse or nursing associate) the public, partners and practitioners would be in a better position to understand who is offering what – to articulate what the service is, could and should be, to meet the health needs of babies, children and families.
