214 Educators providing Courses

SC Johnson Professional

sc johnson professional

Derbyshire,

SC JohnsonTM has a long history in the professional market, in which it started operating in the 1930's. In 2015, the company began its return to the professional market with the acquisition of Deb Group and has now brought the company into an expanded SC Johnson Professional® organisation to serve as a total solutions provider for industrial, institutional & healthcare users. The expanded SC Johnson Professional® organisation incorporates the Deb range of specialist occupational skin care products along with the well-known SC JohnsonTM consumer brands and innovative specialist professional cleaning & hygiene products. With deep category and technical expertise, the SC Johnson Professional® product range provides solutions ranging from skin care, floor care and surface care, through to air care, storage and pest control. "Rethinking the Professional Experience" Our purpose is to bring innovative, quality products and services to professional markets that rethink how people and organisations experience skin care, cleaning and hygiene. We enable customers to gain real benefits in terms of cleaner, healthier and safer workplaces and public environments. This is achieved through outstanding products & services which respect the environment, create efficiencies, reduce inventories, simplify training and create a positive user experience. SC Johnson™ A family company at work for a better world SC JohnsonTM is a family company dedicated to innovative, high-quality products, excellence in the workplace and a long-term commitment to the environment and the communities in which it operates. Based in the USA, the company is one of the world's leading manufacturers of household cleaning products and products for home storage, air care, pest control and shoe care, as well as professional products. The 132-year-old company, which generates $10 billion in sales, employs approximately 13,000 people globally and sells products in virtually every country around the world.

Expectancy - complementary therapy courses for midwives

expectancy - complementary therapy courses for midwives

Derbyshire

Yet again, mainstream media has sensationalised what they perceive as “witchcraft” – the use of “alternative” therapies by midwives. The Sunday Times has now waded into the melee, castigating midwives’ use of aromatherapy, acupuncture, reflexology and “burning herbs to turn a breech baby” (moxibustion). The article by Health Editor Shaun Lintern also denigrates practices which are not classified as complementary therapies, such as water injections for pain relief, hypnobirthing for birth preparation and counselling sessions following traumatic birth. Some of the accusations focus on their (inaccurate) statement about the lack of complementary therapy research, whilst others deplore trusts charging for some of these services. A letter to the Chief Executive of the NHS has been sent by a group of families whose babies have died in maternity units that have now come under scrutiny from the Care Quality Commission and the Ockenden team. Amongst those spearheading this group is a consultant physician whose baby died during birth (unrelated to complementary therapies) and who has taken it on himself to challenge the NHS on all matters pertaining to safety in maternity care. That is admirable – safety is paramount – but it is obvious neither he, nor the author of this latest article, knows anything at all about the vast subject of complementary therapies in pregnancy and birth. The article is padded out with (incorrect) statistics about midwives’ use of complementary therapies, coupled with several pleas for the NHS to ban care that they say (incorrectly) is not evidence-based and which contravene NICE guidelines (the relevant word here being guidelines, not directives). The article is biased and, to my knowledge, no authority on the subject has been consulted to provide a balanced view (the Royal College of Midwives offered a generic response but did not consult me, despite being appointed a Fellow of the RCM specifically for my 40 years’ expertise in this subject). I would be the first to emphasise that complementary therapies must be safe and, where possible, evidence-based, and I am well aware that there have been situations where midwives have overstepped the boundaries of safety in respect of therapies such as aromatherapy. However, I have not spent almost my entire career educating midwives (not just providing skills training) and emphasising that complementary therapy use must be based on a comprehensive theoretical understanding, to have it snatched away because of a few ill-informed campaigners intent on medicalising pregnancy and birth even further than it is already. For well-respected broadsheets to publish such inaccurate and biased sensationalism only serves to highlight the problems of the British media and the ways in which it influences public opinion with untruths and poorly informed reporting.