Regulation of Podiatry

Thanks Mike. Just an update on the foregoing, my initial hearing is this coming wednesday at Westminster Magistrates Court at 10am. This is just a plea hearing and a discussion around trial procedure and witnesses, but if anyone is in the area and at a loose end, drop round to say hello. After that there will be a pretrial hearing then a trial, if we haven't concluded matters before that. I'm indebted to those who have written and PM's me with offers of support - perhaps if I may suggest the following.

If you have a viewpoint on our regulation and the weaknesses in the Protection of Title framework, then I would be happy to include this in my supplementary evidence to the court. Society members may wish to endorse the statement their professional body made in evidence to the Law Commission's consultation on regulation of health and social care

I would also be happy to take a statement from any association or branch groups or from the Institute and of course, any of my colleagues and friends in the podiatry industry. Thanks again for the kind messages - will keep you posted!

 

Hi Mark,

3rd year student who has been following your case with interest (as have a few others on our course). I just wanted to wish you all the best for Wednesday.

Kind regards

Ben

 

Thanks Ben - that is most kind. Very much appreciate that.

 

Mark,

As I said in my email; If I wasn`t already booked for the Primary Care day this Wednesday, I`d pop by. Please let us know the dates of the pre-trial and trial hearing, as I would like to demonstrate my support as I`m sure others will too.

Please feel free to use my email as supplementary evidence, if you think it useful.

Cheers,
Bel

 

Hi Mark. We don t know each other but I have been following this thread with interest over the past few months and just wanted to wish you the very best of luck for today's hearing.

Kind regards

Tim

 

I don't suppose Mark has time to read this today, but he knows I wish him the very best for today.

Go Mark!

 

yep.:drinks

 

Me Too:drinks

 

A quick update on today's proceedings - a not guilty plea was entered and accepted and a hearing date has been fixed for 2 Sept 2013. Hopefully we might reach an accommodation which will be acceptable to both parties, before then - but if not, September it is...

 

'we might reach an accommodation' ! what could that be from your position Mark ?

I`m sure the 'establishment' are having a some jougs roughened up for you !

John Mason

 

I follow this with great interest. Many thanks for the update.

 

Just to wish you good luck mark.

:drinks

David Cooper

 

They'd need a very strong chain, John. I can't really say much else at this point, other than the return journey was much more pleasant than the trip down! There's a lot of discussion to take place before September..

Kind regards

 

Mark

I too read your posts keenly and I would like to add my best wishes for you in September and the intervening interviews and discussions following on from your hearing today.

Your brave stance is appreciated by many of us and the outcome will be eagerly awaited. I just hope common sense will prevail.

DTT -

Derek the Arena would be a darker place without your wonderful jokes, sense of humour and vive! Ive had the pleasure of several chats with you and I find you are always true to your word, informative and encouraging. I truly hope you dont leave us - stay awhile and remember visiting the Arena is a drug - you probably wont be able to kick the habit!

Cheers
Linda Russell

 

Yep, What she says. To both Mark and Dad.

 

Thank you, Linda - that is most heartening.

Kind regards
Mark

 

Please lets not sidetrack this thread.

Nice words from both for which I thank you ,but Marks task is paramount and too important to be lost .

As I said I will lurk but that's it from now.

Good luck Mark and I am following you ( despite being in the past one of your targets)
Cheers
D

 

Looks like physiotherapy have some issues as well:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/50644

 

This was posted on Thatfootsite.

it is yet another example of why Marks case is so important.

chiropodistbath.co.uk

This is a SMAE trained FHP website.

The use of titles and the suggestion that one title means that you can provide the same services as another title.

You imply that your Specialist Wound Care Nursing career is an addition to your role as an FHP.

You have links to NHS Footcare info.

Even better you rent the Physiotherapy Department Clinic in your local Hospital to provide Chiropody Related Services as an FHP in the evenings.

The HCPC really look at the NON HCPC registered practitioners who imply, use Titles they have no right to use.

regards David

 

I'm not sure that SMAE would be overjoyed to see the references to chiropody on this site.

That aside, I agree that it shows how impotent the HCPC are in regulating foot care in the UK.

I have no problem with FHPs providing basic footcare, but I do have a problem with the lines between FHPs and Podiatry being blurred, as this website does.

 

As this quote comes from TFS I'm not sure of the validity or accuracy of it

Being a SMAE trained Podiatrist myself of some 25 years standing, I'll issue a demand from someone in the SMAE to validate ore deny this sham of a website ( should it be proven accurate) and to support ALL SMAE trained PODIATRISTS and give their unequivocal support to those podiatrists in the future and to make the definition of podiatrist and FHP clear beyond any doubt publically on this site and elsewhere.

If of course this is not possible perhaps a transfer of all PODIATRISTS to a singular representative body to unify the profession and move it forward for the future would be appropriate??
Cheers
D

 

Dear DTT,

My words are my words. The WEBSITE is what was discussed on TFS.

If you look at the website you will see what the FHP is stating and the way in which they mix titles is for all to see.

I find it fascinating that those who are FHP's still like to suggest that they are providing a similar service to Chiropodists.

As for your post and stating that one body is an ideal.

Well that is simple all those who are HCPC reg join SOCAP and leave the bodies that train and support FHP's. SOCAP does accept Grandparented practitioners.

But the trainers of FHP's may not support this. Certainly when the HCPC came into being I had hoped, perhaps Naively, that the private trainers would close.

regards David:drinks

 

David
I do not attend TFS and the rabble contained as in most cases find the content of the site inaccurate aggressive and wholly inappropriate for a "profession".

That said, I do appreciate the comment of others on and as you say those that sail close to the wind on the services they provide.

I along with others spent many hours trying to get all into a singular body for podiatrists. It didn't work , the prejudice and hatred shone through as per usual and an opportunity was again lost mainly from the SCP members.

You will NEVER stop the private trainers it is a multi million pound industry churning out FHP or whatever now and in the foreseeable future.

My wish is that the few PODIATRISTS that are coming out of these institutions can be amalgamated within a singular body in an attempt to unite the podiatry profession and move it forward in the future.

Reading this thread I withdrew for posting a while ago but perhaps I still have a passion for this subject.
Best wishes

Cheers
D

 

Hi guys,

We've been round this particular tree a few times now. Dek, I checked the website out and it was as David says.

David, as you are aware, some of us are unwilling to support the SCP, for various reasons.
And the fact of the matter is that FHPs can do much of what a Podiatrist does. They can't do surgery, or give injections, but they can do most of the other stuff we do, and in some cases perhaps they can do it better. This is a reference to hands-on nursing skills which would certainly enhance any practical training provided.
I have met patients who were perfectly happy with the treatment provided by their FHP, less so with treatment provided by their chiropodist previously.

The HCPC won't or cannot act in this particular case, except to send out an expensive letter which may or may not make the FHP change her website. SMAE are more likely to act, but will only do so in their own interests, which I think is fair enough. They are. after all, a business.

In the grand scheme of things though the whole question of one FHPs website is really very unimportant, but of course good fodder to rabble-rouse on that particular forum.

The action Mark R is taking is way more interesting.

 

Hi Dave,
I was not questioning the validity of what David OH, says more the validity of the report on the other site as to whether it was yet another fanciful rabble rouser or had some truth. I cant be arsed to go there for reasons that are well stated.

Yes we have been round this block many times over the years and no doubt it will continue for years to come :wacko:

Private trainers are in business and as you say like any other business want to make a profit AND THEY DO !!! If anyone is in any doubt about that look at the SMAE set up at maidenhead

This profession only helps to perpetuate the norm because of the lack of unity IMO.

Lets hope MR has some luck .
Cheers
D

 

Dek,
I hope we have the opportunity to discuss the block and all it's associated problems for many years to come!

I've met some great people over the years professionally.
You, sir, are one of them!

David

 

I'm well retired.
What am I ?
Am I still a Podiatrist? I am not registered anywhere,
I was State registered long ago and I have diploma s for nail surgery.
I know that I am a director of Health Watch and NHS trust governor.
BUT I DO NOT KNOW IF I AM A P:boohoo:craig:ODIATRIST

 

If you are not registered with the HCPC then no.

BUT

Whether or not your Diploma is still valid I don't know which actually is a good point. Whilst we can no longer call ourselves chiropodist or podiatrist when we retire ( or could we say we are a retired chiro / pod ??) do we forfeit all qualifications earned on retirement?? I know the SMAE demand return of their diploma's but what about any you have obtained through CPD and paid for ourselves ??

David
As you know the BCPA have a rule book and advertising standards are set out there. If this person is in breach of those standards then a written complaint to the SMAE should be made. Whether or not it will be acted upon ..................I don't know but if valid then it should be.

Just my thoughts
Cheers
D

 

Well, you can always call yourself an FHP!

Cheers

Bill

 

There are many problems with this type of regulation most of which have been illustrated clearly by Mark and others above. Does anyone think that we should started a petition outlining the fundamental problems that have arisen since 2001 and make it quite clear that we will all withdraw from the register is they are not met? If we also got support from around the world from international podiatry associations this may assist. The profession of podiatry has been weakened by this legislation and we need worldwide support on our side. How do our cousins in countries such as America think about the way we have been treated and what would they do if they were with the same unenviable position? When we had the old style state registration, the status of the registrants was much stronger. Registrants had all had a minimum length and standard of training. The grand parenting process confused and diluted this. Now it is extremely difficult for those outside the profession to know whom to consult with and what minimum training they have.

 

Surely to goodness it is for the professional bodies to lead in this (and other) areas. The largest, richest (and most powerful) body is the Society. They consistently brag about how they lead the profession; this would be an excellent example of how they can 'put up, or shut up'.

Bill Liggins

 

You are very welcome to write to me and refect your views and I shall submit this along with comments from other colleagues to the court during my submission.

My email is russell(dot)mark(at)btinternet(dot)com

 

Just a short update on the foregoing. The case is still listed for 2nd September however this may be adjourned to a later date due to a clash with holidays. That said, when the case calls, this will be a sentencing hearing - as I have now lodged a guilty plea to the charge of misusing a protected title under the Health Professions Order 2001. This is not due to a change in circumstances, but with the original summons which contained a number of erroneous statements. They have now been removed from the summons and a guilty plea has been entered.

This allows me to lodge a Statement of Mitigation which I shall use as a basis on which to address the court as to the reasons why I have felt compelled to act in breach of the legislation. This statement, together with its numerous supporting attachments I shall upload on the day of the hearing. The aim is to influence the sentence in a favourable manner - i.e. an Absolute Discharge - which if secured, would give considerable weight to the calls for reforming the POT legislation to one which also has a POF supplement.

As soon as I have a firm date I shall post in here.

If anyone else in minded to write in support of the foregoing issue - or would care to give your opinion on the regulation of our profession I would gladly submit this as additional material. You can email or PM this to me - my address on the previous post.

Many thanks

 

OH Pleeeeeze

Lets help Mark with the current situation !!

Bringing up Grandparenting after all these years I believe clouds the issue.
If as you appear to be a "saviour of the worlds footcare" can you instance me an occasion where a grandparented podiatrist has been brought to book with the HCPC for malpractice and has had the case proven ?????

BTW I am Grandparented in case you didn't know
Cheers
D

 

DTT,

What about the George Baldwin case? and in a way the Terence Mitchell case.

 

Can you give me a link please ?
Cheers
D

 

Grandparenting in our profession following the HPO 2001 was a disaster. In the consultation rounds prior to the inception of the HPC the professional bodies were told that to 'close' the podiatry profession there would need to be a reconciliation process with those practitioners who were currently ineligible for state registration through a secondary admissions program - ie grandparenting. Thereafter the legislation would reflect the situation via-a-vis podiatry - where the majority of clinicians work in the private sector. Ministers and civil servants are well aware of the limitations and weaknesses of the POT regulatory regime - and have indicated on numerous occasions that functional closure is needed for our profession to prevent the exploitation we are all so familiar with.

When the legislation finally passed through the House and enacted - grandparenting was past of the process - but functional closure was not! The reason for this? The Blair Government thought that functional closure would stifle competition!! Only politicians would insist on high standards then undermine them by allowing 'competition' from other agencies with no agreed standards!

The net result was an influx of unregistered and sometimes untested clinicians to a register of clinicians who had met a significant test of skills - ie the 3 or 4 year diploma/degree course.

All the while the stable door was left open and SMAE and the other private training schools carried on their activities outside the scope of regulation. Nothing has changed except the profession now has a large number of untested clinicians in its ranks.

That said, there are many grandparented clinicians I would be more happy to refer patients to than some degree non-grandparented pods. They have used their education and training as a mere stepping stone to further study and expertise and have excelled in their field. Compared to some degree trained pods, they are a revelation!

Kind regards

 

"That said, there are many grandparented clinicians I would be more happy to refer patients to than some degree non-grandparented pods. They have used their education and training as a mere stepping stone to further study and expertise and have excelled in their field. Compared to some degree trained pods, they are a revelation!"



Mark,

At an SCP AGM, people were saying about the grandparented not doing any CPD.
Trevor Prior said quite rightly, "I think that it is a bit rich people saying this about the grandparented not doing any CPD, when some of our own members don't do it.

Also, Ralph Graham was saying that the number of cases of litigation, in which the notes have been either rubbish at best, non-existent at worst.

I still think that one of the best ways to have an even playing field is to have proper inspections on clinics (DOM bases also).

 

Mark
Are you hoping that your case may open discussions with the relevant government bodies to re-introduce the matter of closure of the profession?

 

It may lend weight to the growing calls for reform of medical regulation, Ian. The Law Commission's consultation on health profession's regulation has been completed and is available on their website, but they have yet to publish their own recommendations. From submissions that have been made from the likes of SOCAP, the Department of Health and the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (of which the Barrister prosecuting the case is a prominent member) it is clear they recognise the deficiencies of the present POT regime. If the magistrate or judge agrees, they will have an opportunity to add the Bench's voice to the chorus by imposing an appropriate sentence. I hope!