Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

HCPC - A Grand Deception

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Mark Russell, Apr 20, 2014.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I've published an article on my case with the HCPC which may be of interest to those following proceedings with links to the referred documents at www.mark-russell.net

    The legal arguments regarding what constitutes an offence under the Health Professions Order in relation to Protected Titles will certainly be of interest to those who practice podiatry in the private sector - as it would appear that in order to secure a conviction the HCPC must demonstrate there was an intention to deceive - for without that, there can be no offence.

    In recent days I have received a number of emails from colleagues who have also deregistered but still practice under the banner of podiatry or chiropody. To quote one:

    The same approach taken by other colleagues....

    So where does this leave us presently? Very much like my own situation I guess - in limbo. It would appear that there is nothing to stop anyone from calling themselves a chiropodist or podiatrist providing the make it explicitly clear they are not registered with the HCPC. So for private practitioners, why bother? Perhaps the time really has come for a General Podiatric Council - something I'm sure many would welcome...

    Just to update the post on the link above, I have now heard back from the Magistrate's Court administration as they have tabled a new hearing for the 30th April. Round three anyone? Personally, I'm becoming quite bored with it.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  3. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    If what the 2 non-registrants are implying is true, then the following, taken from the HCPC website is an attempt to mislead the professions:

    We currently regulate the following professions: arts therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists / podiatrists, clinical scientists, dietitians, hearing aid dispensers, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, paramedics, physiotherapists, practitioner psychologists, prosthetists / orthotists, radiographers, social workers in England and speech and language therapists.

    All of these professions have at least one professional title that is protected by law, including those shown above. This means, for example, that anyone using the titles 'physiotherapist' or 'dietitian' must be registered with us.

    It is a criminal offence for someone to claim that they are registered with us when they are not, or to use a protected title that they are not entitled to use. We will prosecute people who commit these crimes.


    What have they to say, I think we should hear.

    If their claim is untrue then the position of being registered with the HCPC is exactly the same as with the CPSM ! Is it likely that the legislation changed nothing ?
     
  4. I'm sure the HCPC would be happy to answer your questions. Or perhaps they won't comment at the moment. You can but ask. You can also write to Dan Poulter at the Department of Health and ask that your views on regulation under the HCPC are taken into consideration by the "officials". Maybe it will help. I have a number of colleagues to thank for writing to the HCPC in recent weeks to question them about the misleading and damaging press release that they refused to amend initially - but eventually added a note for editors after repeated requests. I guess there is strength in numbers after all - and one wonders what a few dozen or hundred of similar dedication might have achieved? You know who you are - thank you again.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. blinda

    blinda MVP

    All,

    It`s not too late to do either, preferably both!

    Little effort is required to pen a short email to Dan Poulter and/or the HCPC, expressing concern over the risk that current legislation puts our patients at. If it helps, I can forward a template to anyone wishing to do so. PM me.
     
  6. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I`ve been asked to post the template for the DoH here, as some do not wish to disclose their email. Fairy nuff;

     
  7. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Blinda

    You've made it clear that you have no problem with people treating feet provided they don't falsely claim to be HCPC/Podiatrists. (An earlier post)

    So I'm can't quite see your concern with functional closure as against protection of title.
    Surely just firming up the current legislation, removing the 'intent to deceive' bit would satisfy you ?

    Regards
     
  8. blinda

    blinda MVP

    John,

    I`m not seeking personal satisfaction; just a change in legislation to prevent practitioners who have been found `unfit to practice` from practising by protecting specific function, which may or may not be functional closure.

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  9. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Blinds

    I understand your position.

    However, we have previously explored how functional closure could be implemented and it's almost certainly impractical.

    That leaves us with preventing those found 'unfit to practice' to continue practising.
    This would require a law banning those 'struck off' from treating feet under any guise, rather like a 'Megan's Law', possibly 'Mark's Law'. A field day for the lawyers and again, most unlikely.

    I believe it's no good coming up with a 'want' unless you can provide a practically workable method !

    Regards

    ps. If of course future litigation should find misuse of title proven, then would that not solve the problem ?
     
  10. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I don`t see why not, if hearing aid dispensers managed it.

    As Mark highlighted earlier; without proven intent to deceive, implied or otherwise, there cannot be a criminal prosecution for misuse of title....the HCPC are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the Stick Insect got stuck on a sticky bun.
     
  11. The Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers, The SCP and DoH are of the same view regarding the limitations of PoT where the target profession has both public and private sector presence. Just as it has been done with dentistry and hearing aid dispensers, it is neither impractical or undesirable - indeed it is essential to address the risks posed by those found unfit to practise. Which is why any PoT prosecutions are meaningless - from a regulatory perspective.
     
  12. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Words, words and yet more words !

    There are a plethora of 'trades' dealing with/treating feet, not so teeth and ears.

    Please, a simple method to stop the 'registered yet struck off' from taking up another 'foot trade', without affecting those who were never registered.

    Thanks
     
  13. That's coming. If you had taken the time to read the Law Commission's report you would have noted their recommendations on a barring scheme for exactly that purpose. How it would be implemented without reference to functions is another matter altogether. You appear to have adopted an ideological stance against functional closure and I'm curious as to why. You say there is no appetite for protected functions - where does this assumption come from? There are so many myths and half-truths on this issue - most coming from sources with little authority on such matters. Perhaps you can explain why you feel protection of function is unobtainable and undesirable?
     
  14. blinda

    blinda MVP


    I`m sure you`re not trying to be insulting, John. But, most will agree that Mark`s course of action cannot be regarded as mere `words`.

    Not so. Oral health is undertaken by;
    • Dental nurses,
    • Orthodontic therapists,
    • Dental hygienists,
    • Dental therapists,
    • Dental technicians,
    • Clinical dental technicians
    • and, of course, Dentists.

    Hearing Healthcare Teams are often made up of;
    • Assistant audiologist
    • Associate audiologist
    • Hearing Aid Dispenser
    • Audiologist
    • Clinical Scientist (Audiology)

    As you well know from your previous dealings (when perhaps you were more optimistic), regulation cannot, and never will, be brought about by a `simple method`, but I think it reasonable, in light of the Law Commission Report, that a model similar to dentistry could be applied.

    Maybe a change in legislation will affect those who were never registered. Who knows? Surely, the crux of the matter is that we require more meaningful regulation of practitioners so the HCPC can realistically offer some protection to the public, which current legislation completely fails on.
     
  15. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark

    No ideological stance at all. Re. My view on functional closure-read earlier threads, it's all there.

    Blinda.

    Non of your examples are comparable with the foot trades. Do you think that legislation affecting 'the others' would ever succeed if it meant putting them out of business ?
    OK, a complicated method will do, please !

    Regards
     
  16. blinda

    blinda MVP

    John,
    I wasn't citing comparable examples, just pointing out there are diverse sub-groups within professional teams, which are successfully regulated individually by title and specific function. The same could work for the foothealth industry.

    As I said, whether this would adversely affect, or require statutory regulation of those who have never been registered, I don't know. All I know is, the recommendation, including that of the proposed barring scheme, of a gov't review into PoT by the LC report could lend itself to offering better protection of the public, via protection of specific function.
     
  17. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Blinda

    It all sounds too Big Brotherish to me, and totally unnecessary.

    It seems we're in danger of getting on a roundabout and being unable to get off, as far discussing this subject goes. Various views were comprehensively discussed in the 'How would protection of function work'. I stand by what I said Mar 8 #23.

    Regards
     
  18. blinda

    blinda MVP

    We will have to agree to disagree then, John.

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  19. skigirl

    skigirl Member

    The difference is that there are different industries involved in feet apart from medical - beauty, holistic and of course massage. So nail techs would not be able to cut nails, pedicures would be banned, no more reflexology, massage from the ankles up only. And what about biomechanics and orthotics? And there are even medical pedicures undertaken by podiatrists. It's all terribly blurred
     
  20. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Not really. There are also beauty or non-medical treatments available for the lips, mouth and ears. You don't see Audiologists decrying jewellers for piercing lobes because the ear is their domain, or dentists tut-tutting beauticians for plumping up lips..Hence the term 'specific function' which can be defined by scope of practice or aspects of, just the same as Dentistry and hearing aid dispensers.
     
  21. Just in case anyone was busy spreading sandwiches for a day out on Wednesday, the case has now been adjourned indefinitely by the prosecution.
     
  22. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hi Mark

    Can they actually do this? It seems that it leaves you in limbo at their pleasure which is hardly just and was not, presumably, the purpose of the judge in the Crown Court.

    Cheers

    Bill
     
  23. No, the case will have to be disposed of properly, but as you might expect there are a couple of minor matters to be resolved beforehand.

    Best wishes
    Mark
     
  24. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Could cause a rush of those private practice resigning from the HCPC !
     
  25. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Quicker than you can say; `change of legislation!` ;)
     
  26. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Blinda

    Excellent. Let us know when you do !
     
  27. Et tu?
     
  28. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    As you seem to be acting on Blinda's behalf. I will if she will !

    Hope it's not all talk and no action.
     
  29. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I think you may have misunderstood me, John. Nowhere have I stated that I am personally about to deregister. Your comment; "Could cause a rush of those private practice resigning from the HCPC !"

    Prompted me to say;
    In other words; if they do, there's little point in deregistering IF there is a change in legislation! Sorry if my abbreviated sentence was vague.

    That said, IF it proves that the HCPC cannot lawfully prosecute a deregistred practitioner who continues to use their earned professional title and makes it very clear that they choose to no longer be on the HCPC register, then I see little point for private practioners to remain on it, IMO. But, further clarification is required before anyone takes any action. My hope, as you know but do not agree with, is that there may be a change in legislation as a result of heightened public and professional awareness by Mark's case, so voluntary reregistration would not be necessary.

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  30. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Blinda

    What a disappointment. IF, WOULD, BUT, means NO; all talk, actions speak louder than words and give a degree of credibility !

    Regards
     
  31. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I`m sorry that you feel disappointed, John. Perhaps you could tell us what action you taken recently, other than to criticise every comment that I have made? What makes you think that I have taken no `action`? Are you privvy to everything that I do? The Ifs and buts are down to ongoing `action` that I am not at liberty to publicise.
     
  32. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Blinda

    It's interesting that, on a discussion/debating site, you should assume any view other than your own is meant as personal criticism; it's certainly not. Certainly it's incorrect to say that I've criticised every comment you have made, on the contrary. If you perceive it to be so, I'm sorry, but I could not have anticipated your hypersensitivity.
    I will refrain from replying in future to any comments you post.

    I look forward to hearing what action you have taken when you are at liberty to do so, remember however, to effect some change usually involves an element of risk !

    Regards
     
  33. blinda

    blinda MVP

    No, John. I do not assume that any view other than my own is a personal criticism. You became personal when you demanded to know why I won`t de-register immediately. I simply clarified my position, due to your misundertsanding.

    I agree, best you refrain from replying to my posts if you are going to continue to be personal.
     
  34. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    you demanded to know why I won`t de-register immediately

    !!!!!!!!
     
  35. Maybe it's time for you to dust off your plans to form a GPC? There are a number of private practitioners who have left the HCPC - and can still use their titles of chiropodist and/or podiatrist - who would certainly support a dedicated register. Maybe get a move on or SMAE might beat you to it!
     
  36. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    I already have.


    shepherds may change but sheep remain sheep
     
  37. Good man. Let us know when it's up and running and seeking registrants.
     
  38. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    you demanded to know why I won't de-register immediately !!!!!

    I had hoped that the writer of the above would retract the above statement, sadly it has not been.

    For the record, it is a completely false allegation, designed to misrepresent me.

    As a quick glance at the preceding posts in this thread will show, at no time have I questioned the writer as to the rationale for any action or non action.

    I hope this sort of behaviour is not a reflection of the profession's members or that to come.
     
  39. .....
     

    Attached Files:

    • 11.jpg
      11.jpg
      File size:
      2.3 MB
      Views:
      228
  40. Just heard today that the "understanding'" amounts to a new trial. A case management hearing is scheduled this Friday at Westminster Magistrates Court and a new trial date will be set then. What has become clear is that this is nothing more than a malicious and spiteful prosecution. I have been given papers over the last few days from another colleague that deregistered just before myself in 2008 and who has not been prosecuted as she has successfully argued there is no provision for prosecution under the HPO for misuse of title in the circumstances described here. I will write a summary of the current regulatory position viv-a-vis podiatry and the HCPC later this week, but it is our understanding that providing you do not hold out to be HCPC Registered when you are not, then you are perfectly able to use the titles chiropodist or podiatrist.

    Colleagues are urged to contact their own professional body and ask them to secure an independent legal opinion (the HCPC are refusing to comment) on the foregoing. However, as the registration reminders come though the post box in the coming days, maybe some of you in private practice - at least - might think about sending them back to the Registrar with a note to say you will consider cancelling your registration unless the HCPC makes a public position statement on the weaknesses surrounding the PoT legislation in our profession. As someone recently remarked, "Letter writing is fine, but when you have hold of their wallets, the hearts and minds follow shortly."
     
Loading...

Share This Page