HPC Disciplinary Hearings

I hope that

did not involve members here accessing Podiatry Arena

Cases like those above are always useful to read, as they serve as timely reminders of our responsibilities.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the process whereby the regulator publishes the allegations against the registrant into the public domain as there must always be a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and in today's environment of online information, such publication must have a detrimental effect on the registrant's practice. Fair enough if a registrant has been found guilty after a fitness to practice hearing, but I take the view that publishing allegations is unhealthy unless an interim practice suspension order has been obtained.

Regarding DaVinci's rather sanctimonious comments I would ask what is considered to be 'inappropriate' and 'excessive'? If a registrant accesses pornographic websites (define pornography please) does one necessarily conclude that this impairs his or her ability to provide safe and effective practice for their patients? To what degree should a regulator concern itself with the personal conduct of a registrant? For example, if a registrant and his/her partner watch pornographic DVDs for their own pleasure, should this fall within the domain of regulatory influence? If they partake in a lifestyle that say includes multiple partners, should this disbar them from podiatric practice?

To what extent should a regulator intervene in matters that are not directly concerned with patient care?

 

I was only being cheeky and refering to the "excessive use" and not the "pronographic use"

You have to love this one from the list above quotes above

It wasn't even a conviction and what has that to do with the ability to provide patient care safely

 

DaVinci

Apologies if I misread your comments. If one needed any reason to question the process used by the HPC, you should read the comments submitted on thatfootsite by so-called 'professionals' in response to a FTP hearing posted a few days ago. http://www.thatfootsite.com/forum/viewmessage.php?rootid=8067

I have a qualified interest in these matters having been under investigation for almost a year without any charges being made and no resolution currently, even though three investigations by the NHS concluded these allegations were without foundation, malicious and vexatious. http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=2487

Although the HPC is primarily concerned with ensuring patient safety, one has to ask, at what cost?

Mark Russell

 

At what cost and who is paying?

Is the NHS employee suspended from work until the HPC investigates thus saving the NHS the costs of investigation?

I cannot understand for the life of me why the HPC are investigating cases where inappropriate websites have been accessed and pornographic images have been downloaded. Internet useage should be within terms of the contract of employment. The HPC are not the employers they are regulators. Such cases should be dealt with entirely by the employer.

As a self employed registrant I could be spending every lunch hour admiring the naked form in whatever delivery I chose. Goodness me I used to live on the premises with my partner! Oooo!! So long as my choice of lunchtime activities does not affect my ability to perform on the foot in the afternoon what right does the HPC have to pass judgement? Does this mean one rule for the self employed registrant and another rule for the employed?

No the HPC must revisit their fitness to practice definitions and decide where their role begins and ends before such a case is taken up by a keen lawyer where innappropriate internet use has caused the loss of a registrants livelihood.

GB

 

Well said Mark and George!

In the absence of self-regulation we should surely be supporting the right of colleagues (even if we personally dislike them or their activities) not to have these charges published in such detail by the regulator.

It seems to me that certain employers are using the HPC as a convenient method of disposing of staff with whom they have an issue. Of course, the sting in the tail is that such a member of staff would be able to seek other employment if sacked but will not be able to do so if found guilty by the HPC. I would not go so far as to claim a conspiracy but it's damned convenient isn't it?

All the best

Bill

 

Yes, this is taking regulation too far. Internet misuse has got to be a matter for employers to deal with. If such matters were left in the right hands, the HPC might find time to do what it should be doing and ‘regulate’ the profession. We still await guidelines on CPD Profiles for Chiropody/Podiatry on the site, despite the fact that this is the first profession due to be audited.

I would also agree that it seems highly inappropriate to publish details of any case until it is proven at a hearing and the disciplinary outcome is known. Mark with first hand experience, quite rightly hints at the problems of placing such information in the public domain, in advance of a complaint being upheld. We all have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Current HPC policy seems to do the opposite. By naming and shaming in advance of a hearing, the practitioners in question will naturally appear guilty of whatever misconduct they are accused of. Even if the case is eventually unproven, mud sticks and those individuals are likely to find themselves unfairly discriminated against for the remainder of their careers.

Lawyers could have a field day with this!

Regards

Anne

 

Hi All

I think inappropriate is an understatement Anne,it is a flagrant breach of the British principle of justice being innocent until proven guilty.

I find the whole sorry scene of this "name and shame" policy adopted by the HPC ( and others) disgusting. The sad mentality that promotes this "eastenders mindset" eg " Lets twist everything we can out of proportion and bring as much misery down on an individual and TAKE PLEASURE IN DOING SO" (help me out here Felicity what was the name of it again ?? 2 Mercedes crashing in your example ??)

What is even more sad is the whole thing is supported and reproduced in some of the professional journals just to make sure the ALLEGATION is seen by everyone.I don't see any apologies when the case is not proven though

The encroachment of these policies into our private lives is unjust and grossly unfair. Unless it has a bearing on patient treatments it has nothing whatsoever to do with the HPC or anyone else for that matter.

I followed Marks link to "that footsite" and frankly how any self respecting "professional" could be involved in the YAH BOO contained there is beyond me( it would seem to have similarities to the HPC's fitness to practice site ??). The cretin who made that particular posting must be a very sad twisted individual and perhaps with luck can be identified and the recipient could then take legal action against them should events prove that possible.

If this is the HPC's idea of "regulating the professions" I shudder to think of the future for us all .
Cheers
Derek

 

Hi George
Me too, in fact I have just treated an openly Gay man with Achilles pain from wearing ladies high heels. He also has faulty foot / leg function and was intimating he practices some quite "strange" sexual techniques.

Now not being of that persuasion and confess to having a very limited knowledge of the practices of this group, should I research the subject on the internet for the patients benefit or do I fear reprisals from the HPC ?

I have in the past had Lap /pole dancers with lower limb biomechanical problems and yes I'm sorry to say I have very limited knowledge of that profession as well but the same applies. I need to know what they do to treat them successfully removing the causative factor.

Am I now having my clinical judgment restricted and impaired by this policy ??

Cheers
Derek

 

Derek - If I was you, I would write a letter to HPC tell them about this case, tell them you want to search the internet to find out more to help you manage him but you are concerned that you might be subject to a disciplinary hearing if you did ....ask for there advice. Only do it for facetious reasons --- but it makes a point to the HPC (and will give everyone a laugh)

 

Hi Craig

I think doing so will set me up for the first on the list for audit in 2007

I may also point out , not being university educated, (just diploma trained) I will not be attending ANY courses to tell me how to write letters or appraisals to the HPC or anyone else at £90 a time !!
Should the need arise if they cannot understand a short note and the fact I am still in practise after 20 years then they must do their worst
Cheers Fella
Derek
ps, I think I should of stuck to "lurking"

 

Netizens

Because I have lived so long and found myself a peripatetic academic I have crossed disciplines several times in my career. More recently I was reading a Masters in Forensic Sexology. My hobby being shoe history was put to good use as I began to research the psycho-social, then psycho-sexual history of shoe design in the Middle Ages during epidemics of STDs. To keep as open a dialogue as I could I posted my research notes on the web (through the university). This is now an e-book and has 33 chapters and a hit rate of approximately 3000 per day.

I had permission from my employer and supervisor throughout to visit websites that would otherwise be considered inappropriate in order to collect data. The ebook is now archived in the National Museum, Canberra because it contains so much Australiana. I am very proud of this achievement for obvious reason and believe if nothing else this makes it very respectable. However whilst there are four chapters which deal with sex and feet and 29 chapters on aspect of shoes, please be warned to visit the site on work time might be considered inappropriate. Such is the thin line which could catch the unwary out.

As Mark quite rightly reminds us all that pornography is very much in the eye of the beholder but a little more difficult to define with precision. Contrary to the popular myth, porn is all around and easily accessible this is just not true. What most people refer to as pornography relates to soft porn (or objectification) only, and not hard core pornography (victimisation). Both can cause offense, of course and the sin is seeing, but there is a distinct difference between them i.e. one is legal and the other not. Believe it or not access to hard core is more difficult than might be thought and requires becoming part of a (secret) network with password entry. Many public websites proporting to contain hard core porn are sting sites set up by the legal authorities to monitor activities.

Being a member of any club requires acceptance of club rules and employers have a legal right to declare what is acceptable behaviour on work time and work equipment. To transgress would if proven mean sanctions taken against you. By the same token the registration body has rules and conduct of behaviours and can act as they see fit when behaviours have been transgressed. Unfortunately contrary to the rule of UK Justice, the onus seems now to be upon the named individual to prove their innocence and this can be a very expensive exercise. This may be one reason why private companies and individuals get away with "name and shame". There are two ways to change this, one is to mount a legal challenge and the other to become part of the establishment which governs, and change the system for within. Both are very hard roads and so the staus quo remains.

Research into psychosexual disorders
My colleague and I have just had published a paper in a UK journal on the bioethics of cosmetic surgery and treating people with psychosexual disorders. It took two years and three reviews before it was finally printed. That seems some kind of record and would suggest fine sensitivities, somewhere. However the problems are real, the patients are real and a professional body such as podiatry needs to be informed so they can practice in a professional manner and without judgement. I understand exactly where you are coming from DTT and would certainly agree with Criaig's advice to contact your employer and registration authority on your research intention. This is perfectly legitmate (in my view) and there is no need to do this for facetious reasons. We either take ourselves seriously , or we do not.

What say you?

Cameron
Hey. what do I know.









.

 

Hi Cameron

I am self employed so I can do as I please with my pc provided I keep within the law of the UK which as I understand it is a very grey area with regard to what you can and cant look at.

I was actually making a serious point of principle to highlight the situation we are in. It is all very easy to be judgemental on things we don't understand and yes the sexual aspect of what we do is always present in peoples minds.

How many times has the jibe been made to the male colleagues among us " Are you sucking toes or looking up skirts" comments made by the brain dead but in their mind that is a part of why we do what we do.

The fact this guy to which I referred was an effeminate openly gay 97kg 50 year old,that in itself prompts mirth in many cases BUT this guy has structural problems that need sorting out he is in a lot of discomfort and his quality of life is being affected. As I said he intimated some sexual practices I found strange and that he wore womens high heels and when he wore them he could "run like f***" ( hence the Achilles condition highlighted).
Now I didn't pursue the practices more than that as I didn't feel comfortable doing so as I didn't understand exactly what was involved.

I'm sure you and anyone that has researched the subject could do a far better job with this patient than I but I do still want to get him back to a pain free existence .

I will go along recognised lines at present and review the outcome but it may be I will require "specialist knowledge" to offer advice and treatment to effect a resolution of his condition.

With the name & shame policy the HPC has adopted on ALLEGATION ONLY I must now keep one thought predominately in mind

I also want to work tomorrow !!!

Prickly subject innit ??

Cheers
Derek

 

<ADMIN EDIT>

 

Hi Dermot

Thanks for that information ,I didnt realise boxes played a part in the proceedings

You seem to have a very detailed knowledge of the mechanics and requirements of the act ,thank you for improving my knowledge

Cheers
Derek

 

Seems moderator has no sense of humour though.
Is that you David?

 

Hi All
I think before this descends into trivialities and the moderators blue pen runs out and we get away from the point , which is:-

Peoples occupations / lifestyles affect their clinical presentation.
Unless we as clinicians are allowed to research to evaluate and treat ALL patients from all persuasions occupations etc ,we must be able to do so without administrative interference or threats on our livelihoods.

I liken this situation to another on JISC mail some time ago with a pod working in central London being asked by a "professional lady" "what was the safe time she could leave a patient in toe gallows"?

It caused a furore with some but as the pod said "in her area of London that profession is common and they are entitled to the best advice and treatment she could offer along with everyone else" a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with being a non judgemental person.
I don't know anything about toe gallows so if her client came to me for treatment and that "interest" was part of the problem how should I / we go about obtaining the knowledge to understand the mechanics and if that is the causative factor ??

I think there are only so many questions you can put to someone in these situations without appearing to be "acting outside your remit" which in itself can bring us into conflict with the HPC.

I think I am getting depressed as I have admitted my lack of worldly wisdom in this area and am realising what a sheltered life I must have lead !!

Cheers
Derek

 

DTT wrote
"have in the past had Lap /pole dancers with lower limb biomechanical problems and yes I'm sorry to say I have very limited knowledge of that profession as well but the same applies. I need to know what they do to treat them successfully removing the causative factor".

I am more than happy to accept referrals for the above, I am even prepared to travel.

 

Hi Peter

The original lady in question arrived in a brand new Jaguar XK (around £80,000 to buy I think) complete with designer clothes and jewelery and admitting to earning over £1000 per night in the club where she worked.

Got a lot of money ?? If you can afford her can I look after your practice whilst your here ??

Her problem She had her shoes 6" high stiletto made for her @ many £100 out of rigid clear plastic. She only told me she wore "designer shoes" at the previous consultations and the real cause only came to light when she refused to let me put some fleecy web on her toes "as it was visible" the club would not allow it.

I researched what she / they wore and did via some chaps at my golf club who supply / attend corporate events at these clubs and they told me .

Here we go again wot a sad life I have lead, pass the Prozac someone !!

Cheers
Derek

 

I am somewhat out of my depth here and I am amazed by the sheltered lives so many of this profession suddenly seem to lead!

However the crux of the matter is that, regardless of what the nature of the grievance happens to be, the HPC is out of order in its handling of all cases of complaint.

Publicising the names of those allegedly guilty of misconduct and the nature of their misdemeanour on a public site, prior to a hearing, must be in breach of our basic human rights?

As I said previously 'mud sticks' and, any allegation is bound to affect the credence, professional standing and income of the individual defendant, quite possibly for the rest of their working days. This is justified where guilt is proven, but where there is only a minor misdemeanour or when someone is vindicated, I should think that they would have a very good case against the HPC for defamation of character.

Perhaps it is time that instead of griping about it here, we all put pen to paper and complained to the HPC about the way it handles complaints and the nature of the complaints it accepts?

Regards

Anne

 

Hi Anne
Should not the professional bodies be doing that now or in fact made sure it didn't happen in the first place ??

Are they supposedly there to protect our interests or is that no longer part of the remit ?

I suppose Mark would be in a better place than all of us to answer that one as he has got experience of both sides of the coin?

As I said in an earlier post some of the professional journals publish this part of the HPC site and appear to revel in the misery it brings so one can only assume they support the practice.

Each to their own Anne just the two instances I highlighted I have no personal interest in( it may be legal I'm just glad it ain't compulsory ) and the detail of parts escapes me but I can assure you after 24 years riding an Accident and Emergency Ambulance in London and the hospital life that went with it in those days, sheltered my life was not !!

Be Lucky


Cheers
Derek

 

Hi Derek,

Yes, the professional bodies should have ensured that this couldn't happen in the first instance.

Now that it has, perhaps we should all be working together in a concerted effort to attain proper and fair regulation as soon as possible. Squeaky wheels get oiled.

Regards,

Anne

 

Hi Anne

And it is up to them now !! our representatives from whichever organisation you belong to should be out there fighting our corner and trying to protect us from this sort of thing

It seems to me all of them are so "hand in glove" with the HPC they are afraid to raise any objections to anything

Why are they not testing this policy through the courts with the legal people attached to them ??

Why has the European human rights commission not been brought into the equation ??

Why Why Why ??

No Anne!!

It is not for individuals to put their professional neck on the line .

It is the people who we as a whole pay to do that for us that should be.

They should have been and should be screaming at the bureaucrats to come back within the principal of British justice and make the policy change to protect out rights.

Until that happens all we can do is gripe on forums like this

Cheers
Derek

 

Derek

Perhaps Anne was meaning that all the professional bodies work together to attain proper and fair regulation. Not the individual and not just the various Podiatric professional bodies. If all the professional bodies, whose members are HPC regulated, worked together on this with proper legal advice would the HPC (DOH and ultimately the government) listen?

I think not. The HPC is destined for grander things. Have a read of the document Regulating the Non-Medical Professions published by the DoH this summer. The HPC are put forward as the gold standard of regulators for the non medical professionals.

Perhaps we would beg to differ?

God help any pole dancing transvestite podiatrist paying off the student loan in years to come ...the HPC are watching you....

GB

 

While I agree with all the comments above re this 'name and shame' thing and the need for profesional bodies to lobby HPC etc etc ....but lets not loose site of what the HPC (like the Registration Boards here in Australia) is allegedly there for - to protect the public. Any lobbying from professional bodies will only be seen as an attempt to serve their own members self interest - the HPC may see that self interest as being contrary to the good of the public interest.

Whether you agree or not, this is the way public servants see the world and will react accordinly. This does not mean that the professional bodies should not pursue this course of action ... it just means that what we want will be interpreted as self interest (which is not necessaroly a bad thing)

 

Hi George

Work together ? Hmm now theres an interesting thought .

I tried a few months ago with Mark Russell to get the hierarchy of the two main podiatry bodies to just TALK

We are still awaiting a response.

It ain't gonna happen George so reading your post , its a pretty dismal outlook ain't it ?

Mind you I suppose if I looked for a position like this and they didn't mind the fact I'm old fat and ugly ??
Cheers
Derek

 

-

Hi Craig

TOO BLOODY RIGHT !! and self preservation as well!!

Whats wrong with that ??

Oh well Whoopee Doo ,and bugger us in the process!!

If someone is PROVEN to have committed a wrongful act whatever that may be the fair enough hang them out to dry have your public pillory and destroy their career if you must irrespective of how trivial that wrong doing my be.

But before the trial takes place ???

Not over here mate (unless it is the HPC of course)

We have built our justice system on the presumption on innocence until proven guilty and that has held for many years.

How can anyone expect a fair hearing when it is already being prejudged as Anne quite rightly says.

It is wrong !! and should be challenged in the courts by the legal departments of the professions .

I pay a lot of money to my professional body AND to the HPC every year, money I as an IPP work very hard for with all the pressures of running a business and now the constant threat of my business being taken from me by bureaucratic nonsense ?

The world has truly gone mad

Cameron can we start the Podologists society and get away from the nonsense of regulation ??

My rant for the day

Cheers
Derek

 

There is nothing wrong with it. Its just how it works. I have dealt with my fair share of public servant bureaucrats over the years related to issues not too dis-similar to this one and I was just pointing out how they think when it comes to their role ... ie public interest vs a professions self interest.

Exactly ... hasn't what has happened a perfect example of just this.

I totally agree and it shouldn't happen, but I was more refering to was how the professional bodies position/lobbying will be interpreted (ie self interest).

 

I understand what you mean Craig but what do we do ? just lie down pay our money and get stuffed??

Why are the professional bodies so sensitive ? Get up and have a row sort it out !!

You know Mark and myself have had furious confrontations on this forum in the past we have reconciled our differences and have tried to unite the profession in our own ways but if the attitude of the professional bodies" just to lie down" is the future ,what future do we have ?

Jeeez this is getting very profound ain't it
Cheers
Derek

 

You’ve got my drift George. Yes, a pipe dream I know, but we have got to mend some bridges and appear as a unified profession.

I would agree with Craig. “Any lobbying from professional bodies will only be seen as an attempt to serve their own members self-interest”. The HPC may see that self-interest as being contrary to the good of the public interest. Perhaps rightly so – its’ remit is the protection of the public.

Professional bodies are there to protect their members i.e. us. What professional body wouldn’t show solidarity with its members if their human rights were being challenged and their jobs were on the line? In paying our fees and belonging to such organisations this is what we all as Craig suggests, have rightly come to expect.

Regards

Anne

 

I can't speak from any knowledge of the UK situation, but my assumption is that the professional bodies are in their doing just that (they are here in Australia) ... ie working for the professions self interest (often they disguise that as the public best interest, but most buearucrats are not stupid and can see thruogh that.).

When battles are lost (and the formation of HPC is an eg) the 'rank and file' membership get ****** and rile against the leadership when they should be just accepting the loss and moving on.

If you consider the professional bodies like trade unions (which they essentially are). How many battles do the trade unions win??? not many?

I do think the professional bodies should be going after this 'name and shame' thing, but they are really acting in the interests of those who have been or are likely to be 'named and shamed' ---- but the HPC will have to weigh that with public interest. They may consider that this 'name and shame' is in the public interest (I don't) .... but then again imagine the outcry from the public if there was an allegation of incompetence or sexual abuse or etc and it took several years before the formal hearing and the public were still at risk during those years ---- the public would want some blood from the HPC for not publishing the allegation as soon as they considered it to have substance .....

Policy making is all about weighing competing interests.

 

You’ve got my drift George. Yes, a pipe dream I know, but we have got to mend some bridges and appear as a unified profession.

I would agree with Craig. “Any lobbying from professional bodies will only be seen as an attempt to serve their own members self-interest”. The HPC may see that self-interest as being contrary to the good of the public interest. Perhaps rightly so – its’ remit is the protection of the public.

Professional bodies are there to protect their members i.e. us. What professional body wouldn’t show solidarity with its members if their human rights were being challenged and their jobs were on the line? In paying our fees and belonging to such organisations this is what we all as Craig suggests, have rightly come to expect.

Regards

Anne

 

Then a suspension from practice order whilst a PROPER investigation takes place is the right way with serious allegation like this.

What it is not is to publish any allegations BEFORE the conviction.

Which ever way you look at this Craig it cannot be right and just for anyone who ultimately finds themselves cleared of any wrong doing but has had their career / Life destroyed in this manner

Cheers
Derek

 

Hi Anne

Come to expect ??

But obviously not being delivered in this case

Cheers
Derek

 

One function of the regulatory body is most definitely to protect the public. It has taken some pretty serious cases over decades of none regulation for the UK to have come this far. The cases highlighted within DoH documentation are from the medical profession - i.e Doctors.

We are now in a learning situation within the UK about what is regulation. This applies to both the general public and those who are being regulated. The majority of the public, despite campaigns by the HPC, haven't a clue what this means and I don't think the majority of the Podiatry profession has a clue what the HPC function is all about either. I am aware that many Podiatrists have not even considered the regulatory side of their registration. Paying ones fees to the HPC is something one does in the UK to be able to call themselves HPC registered! For many, tunnel vision regarding grandparenting has occupied the last two years. Eyes need to be opened wide to understand the full implication of regulation.

Whilst the public are indeed protected by regulation I feel that we as professionals have a right to be protected from the public especially in the current climate of blame and shame followed up closely by the claim culture. Who can we turn to for protection? Certainly not the HPC, certainly not employers and now I am led to believe our professional bodies have little clout in dealing with the regulators.

The HPC have chosen to protect title rather than function. The HPC have asked us to be vigilant regarding unscrupulous activities by our fellow professionals registered or not (whistle blowing) followed up by investigation should it be deemed necessary. The public have also been asked to report unscrupulous activities. This I feel is grossly unprofessional and a practice that should be stopped. It directly encourages name, shame and claim.

I for one feel the system of regulation adopted by the HPC is open for abuse. Bill Liggins put it quite succinctly -

So having read the latest threads, I wonder as I make my way to work this Saturday morning praying nobody has developed an overnight grudge, who is out there to protect the non medical professional?

GB

 

Hi George

Should we not also expect support for our profession as well ?? and as you quite rightly state "protection from the public" ??

Not sure I understand this ?? Why should anyone hold a grudge over a discussion it is simply expressing an opinion whether you agree with the sentiment or not. If as I hope you are not suggesting that the people who represent us are so "fragile" to let some thing like this affect them ?

Cheers
Derek

 

I must tell you that the Alliance has made input to the HPC in defence of several of its members, successfully. The Alliance does not agree with naming an individual before investigating the value of an allegation and has said so. The Alliance is not simply about self interest. It does defend its members - because we ALL need defending against this inappropriate regulatory mechanism AND the claims culture. Not propoganda. Just fact.

 

How did we get to this position ?

It was our "professional bodies" i.e. UNIONS - that brought us here.

What would you think if the unions of, teachers, coalminers, electric etc were treated like this ?

The UNIONS are here to look after the interests of its members yet it was them that caused this mess.

I propose we all get out own insurance and do away with these so called "professional spongers"