Factory Nurse (Munitions)

[Magnabill]

I have the registration badge, for a certified Midwife No. 65981 dated 9.4.25, amongst other items, for M J Shepherd (although spelled as Sheperd on the rear ). Other documents show her name as Maisie J Shepherd.

I do know that she was employed as a Factory Nurse during the Great War at the National Filling Factory, Morecambe and received an award for her devotion to duty, during a large explosion there in 1917.

What was the status of a factory Nurse at such a venue, was it different to a Nurse at a general hospital and would she have had to undergo 3 years of training. If not, I suspect that she became a Certified Midwife following that experience and wonder how long her training for that position might have taken. Was it also the case that you had to be a General Nurse before becoming a Midwife?

I do seem to have asked a lot of questions and would appreciate any answers you can give.

Many thanks

Ray

[johnreed]

This paragraph is taken from the Official History of Barnbow. Page 43 "There was a staff of fully qualified nurses under the superintendence of the resident doctor, and it was augmented by V.A.D. workers, who were posted to the various surgeries and rest rooms provided throughout the factory area."

Johnh

[Sue Light]

Ray

Factory Nurses were fairly new in this country at the time of the Great War. There was no national standard of training or registration at that time, so factories were free to employ anyone who they saw fit for the job. Although a three year training was the 'gold standard' for nurses, many had a lesser training, or no training at all ('trained on the hedgerows of life' ), and a lot of the factory nurses were women who had previously worked as nurses in the community, rather than in hospital. I tend to think that most were not three year trained, though it's not possible to come to any conclusion for an individual nurse without other evidence.

She was a qualified midwife by 1925 - that would be her year of registration, and as there had been national registration for midwives since 1904, she must have trained immediately prior to her registration. I'm not sure exactly how long the training was in 1925. It was still six months in 1923, and was raised not long after that to one year, but I don't know the exact date. The Midwives' Roll is held at The National Archives in DV7, and the register for 1926 onwards will show her entry, and by that time should record where she trained. There was no requirement to be a trained nurse before undertaking training as a midwife - in fact there still isn't today. Even today there is direct entry midwifery training, although now it lasts three years. If she was a fully trained nurse prior to her midwifery training, she will have an entry in one of the Registers of the General Nursing Council, which were published yearly from 1921 - a check of say the 1924 or 1925 Register at The National Archives (DT10/4 or DT10/5) would find her if that was the case.

For a broader view of Factory Nurses, a search of the British Journal of Nursing using that term finds lots of information:

British Journal of Nursing

Sue

[Magnabill]

John & Sue,

Many thanks to you both for casting some light into a dark room.

Sue,

Whilst we all know how important midwifery is, what would have been the pecking order in the field of nursing between a general nurse of 3 years training and a six month midwife? I suppose that what I'm getting at is; would it have been the done thing to become a midwife after training to be a nurse? I have the notion of status being important in those days and wonder how much cross over there might have been?

I'll give the National Archive a visit for the references you gave and I have ordered the book by Olive Dent from the library, that you previously mentioned.

Many thanks

Ray

[Sue Light]

Ray

I think it's changed over time. At the turn of the century midwifery was commonly looked on as a different profession, and I don't think there was a lot of problem between the midwife and the trained nurse. General trained nurses didn't feel the need to do additional training as midwives, although as the years went on more of them did short courses - 3 months or six months. But eventually it became more common for midwives to do a general training first, and as more entered midwifery with the double qualification, I think there did start to develop a 'better than you' mentality. By the 1960s there were not many direct-entry midwives - I worked as a midwife for many years and don't ever remember working with one.

Now, the length of post-registration midwifery training has been extended to eighteen months, which makes it a less attractive proposition after already slogging through at least three years, and the number of direct-entry midwives doing a dedicated three year training is increasing again and attractive for mature women. However, I understand that there is a 'them and us' attitude in many places, and direct-entry midwives can be rather looked down on. I don't think that would have been the case before the Second World War - they both felt they had a unique place, and didn't compete so much with each other.

Sue