Please answer `yes` or `no`

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Please take a minute to answer `yes`, or `no` to the very simple question posed by Mark on the UK Podiatry Facebook page;

https://www.facebook.com/groups/207000109406878/

"For those who have been part of the profession from 2003 onwards, was it your understanding/impression from your professional body and/or regulator that if you used a title such as chiropodist or podiatrist without holding registration with the HCPC you would be committing a criminal offence by misusing a "protected title"?

We are not debating this subject, but would appreciate your answers.

Many thanks
Bel

 

Yes. And an offence for which you would be struck off, thus debarring you from both NHS and private hospital practice.

Bill

 

Hi , yes that was my understanding.

 

Yes, that has been my understanding too

 

It would appear that this position is still being advanced by the HCPC: In a response to the following question by a colleague today...

They HCPC responded

The above question is exactly that the Judge asked of the QC in the appeal last week and he confirmed it was not an offence. A qualified podiatrist may legally call himself a podiatrist without holding registration with the HCPC providing there is a publicly accessible narrative stating he is not registered with the HCPC. On that basis alone there can be no "protected" titles - and indeed the legislation doesn't provide or bestow such a privilege either.

There are also circumstances where a podiatrist can use the title with the prefix "registered" without being registered with the HCPC. If that individual is a qualified podiatrist and is registered with another accredited register of professionals such as http://foothealthpractitionerregister.co.uk/CheckTheFootHealthPractitionerRegister.htm (or a GPC if John Mason ever got off his lazy arse and set one up ;-) ) - providing it is clear that they are not registered with the HCPC.

Quite straightforward really. :drinks

 

a couple of things occur to me on this subject that i've not seen in the discussion though apologies if it has already been done to death.

As i have earned a degree in podiatry that fact does not change whether i am registered with someone or not, i am by definition a "qualified podiatrist".

The HCPC might have given us the wrong impression over the years (though i was never under the illusion that they were protecting the public from non-podiatrists offering foot treatments, were you?) but i am glad they understand this point and do not seek to have the power to remove our qualification from existence. I could always use this to describe myself "Joe Footman BSc(Hons) Podiatry". Good, i bloody earned it!

Due to the general lowering of minimum qualification in all fields in our ever poorer nation is it likely that they will ever bother taking the trouble to prevent FHPs etc offering basic footcare? (yes i know some offer way beyond a realistic scope but in the main) If not what are you trying to achieve here?

I agree people with sub-degree training need to be distinguishable from qualified podiatrists BUT that is a separate issue to trying to bully the HCPC to further be lords over qualified podiatrists. Are you that much in need of regulation that you couldn't be a podiatrist without it? Do you invite the CQC around for monthly inspections of your clinic as well?

Personally if i ever found myself de-registered for one of their bizarre non-treatment related reasons i'll be very glad to be able to adjust my advertising slightly and carry on offering the same treatment i was well trained to do and have been doing safely for many years. As i dare say you would be.

In fact thanks to your efforts i'm seriously considering de-registering myself and just put a footnote on my advertising*

*We choose not to fund the HCPC through pointless registration

Waiting for you to claim i missed the point somehow but for me i feel sure you are missing the bigger picture and hope you will stop shooting us in the foot soon :deadhorse:

Love the enthusiasm just wish it was directed somewhere else

 

It is true that the HCPC cannot take away your title, but they did previously claim; `It is a criminal offence to use a protected title whilst not on the HCPC register`. They make no such statements now, oddly enough.

I`m not sure who you are directing your rather condescending questions to here, but no. I am not trying to bully anyone into preventing FHPs from offering basic foot care.

Not worth addressing the rest of your post, as you quite rightly pointed out; you have missed the point, anon.

 

My only objective is to ensure that the court agrees that I have not committed any offence.

All the best

Mark

 

Well good, we are back to the status quo of the old state registration where (hard to prove now) i assume it would have been a legal issue to claim incorrectly that you were state registered. Certain benefits came with registration: NHS employment, respect of fellow professionals, enhanced advertising for PP.

It is probably due to marks testing the HCPC system to destruction that the toothlessness of the HCPC has been revealed for all the world of quackery to see. Shame really. Prior to that it would have served as a deterrent for the vast majority and that might have been the best compromise to hope for. Enough wiggle room for us, enough deterrent for them. More pushing in this direction simply paints ourselves further into a corner. I'm specifically talking about your seeming upset at this "A qualified podiatrist may legally call himself a podiatrist without holding registration with the HCPC" That is not a bad thing in my opinion.

More than saying "We are not debating this subject"?

I didn't say you were

Inevitably my disagreeing with you would lead you to think that.

:santa:

 

Yes fair enough, needs must. Was probably bound to happen at some point.

I'd happily concede a mistake if you are happy for non-registered podiatrists to work as podiatrists but wasn't it more to make a point that the HPC were not strong enough that started this? Seems like a long time ago and i've studiously not kept up with podiatry politics.

 

Nope. Never said it was a `bad thing`, but I would consider being deliberately misled by the HCPC is.

My comment was in relation to the linked thread on the UK Podiatry facebook page (where a simple yes or no answer was required), not here. I don`t mind debating regulation, but I suggest you read the `Regulation of Podiatry` thread first, to get a grasp of what the debate is about and then pose your questions there. To keep on topic.

 

Out of interest how do you feel about it?

But the HCPC were making a useful threat weren't they? And in reality isn't it better FOR US that they are a bit toothless (partly conditional to not everyone knowing it was toothless).

It wouldn't let me see it without joining facebook

I think you just out condescensioned me

I had read some of the 328 posts and it was getting a bit samey if i'm honest. But the thrust of this thread seemed worth challenging as a stand alone point.

 

If you`re interested, my feelings are that the HCPC is not fit for purpose. It claims to `protect the public`, when it can`t - not whilst they knowingly strike off dangerous practitioners as unfit for practice, only for them to continue to practice on the vulnerable public, with impunity. They also claim to `protect titles` which they also can`t - not whilst there is the conditional requirement of an `intent to deceive`.

No, IMO, they were not a useful threat. They have inappropriately misinterpreted the HPO and subsequently misled all the professions it regulates. Personally, I don`t like being lied to. Particularly by a quango that has greedily taken my money on false premise. Who are you referring to in your use of `US`? The profession? No, not if that is what you mean. Currently, the HCPC is used and abused by the NHS as a public whipping post to cowardly remove their perceived undesirable colleagues, often for the most obscure and, as you pointed out earlier, bizarre accusations of impaired practice. Whilst those in private practice pay their registration fees (which have just increased) to an organisation that the public have never heard of, nor care about. How can this scenario be of any benefit to us? Or anyone, other than those whose pockets the profession continues to line.

Anyway. There are far worse government manoeuvres occurring.. a sad night indeed.

 

Lets prioritise for a minute. In terms of protecting the public are the HPC a problem for allowing "dangerous practitioners" (has there actually been a podiatrist stuck off for being dangerous?) to continue offering their services or is the problem that practically untrained people could offer services with no relation to the HPC at all?

Seems that the bigger battle to be fought is to prevent unqualified people offering rubbish treatment for the same price to people who don't know better and don't realise that they could be in much safer hands. However realistically there is no way they will be prevented from working, there are twice as many of them as there are podiatrists and there are not enough of us to go around as it is. Imagine if suddenly there was a 200% increase in demand. Would we even cope if we won that battle? Perhaps knowing that that would be a hopeless fight to take on you think rather than do nothing at least lets make life harder for the qualified podiatrists by making it so that un-registered qualified podiatrists have less right to practice than people who did a fortnights training? That seems unwise to me.

You even say yourself "Currently, the HCPC is used and abused by the NHS as a public whipping post to cowardly remove their perceived undesirable colleagues, often for the most obscure and, as you pointed out earlier, bizarre accusations of impaired practice." So why campaign for it to be worse when one of us (qualified) end up a victim of it?

Of the unqualified providers is even 1% claiming to be a podiatrist now? The HPC thing has prevented 99% of our unqualified competition from advertising as chiropodists or podiatrists for the last 10 years. Quite useful. Even from an economic point of view it might have been worth paying their London salaries to have that exclusivity. But i can tell i'm going to get some ethical hackles up if i sound that pragmatic. Just trying to be objective.

These kind of emotional feelings aren't the best reason to act IMO

This problem goes back to before the HPC when the good idea of grand-parenting was mismanaged and of course massively under funded. IF the funding had been in place and everyone working "as a" podiatrist underwent sufficient training to be useful and the non-degree schools were brought up to degree standard so there was an equal number of places so there would be no shortage of foot carers and part time courses were introduced to enable them to train and they were forced with total clarity that so much as touching someone else's foot would be criminally illegal if not registered so that the uptake would have been high. IF all of that had been in place then we wouldn't have this problem. In which case is the answer to do it again but properly this time? Grand parenting 2.0?

The reality as it is (always best to consider reality) if you ask 10 MPs what podiatry is perhaps one will know. If you ask 10 GPs what the difference is between a Foot Health Practitioner's and a Podiatrist's training probably none would know. One plastic surgeon i spoke to who sits on a NHS commissioning board said Podiatry is a "nice to have". There is no enthusiasm for podiatry full stop let alone such a massive and expensive change. No need to blame the SCP for not doing miracles about our profile either, it's just not going to happen.

My opinion, is just try to take it easy, do the best you can for your patients and leave things as they are.

 

where are you at Mark? last time I heard the court date was moved but that was maybe before summer

 

"The HPC thing has prevented 99% of our unqualified competition from advertising as chiropodists or podiatrists for the last 10 years."

May have prevented them from advertising as chiropodists but they still say in their adverts, "Nail cutting, ingrowing toe nails, hard skin, corns, verrucas" and the public fall for it!

 

Hi Mike - it concludes in seven day's time at Preston Crown Court. This is the third and final day of the appeal. You can read about the previous hearing here: http://mark-russell.net/Blog/index.php/2015/10/05/a-long-road/

I'm sure that would suit you just fine; deception and hypocrisy are defining features of the landscape it would seem. Especially in the professional bodies. :boohoo:

 

yes they do and it's very unfortunate the grand-parenting and shutting the door to further unqualified providers was not done properly back in 2005.

My point here though is that that would be one battle to fight. Wise or not is debatable. Possible to win? Highly unlikely. Have to live with it? Most probably. As i tried to set out above.

What i can see no wisdom in though is fighting against regulation that allows non-registered QUALIFIED podiatrists to at least have the same rights as people with no qualification. In fact it's clearly bonkers to try to prevent us being able to practice as "un-registered podiatrists" with the situation as it is. If we are going to aim for idealism at least go about it in a logical manor. Start with the unqualified not being able to practice first. If they can practice there is no point shooting ourselves in the foot just for the sake of it.

I realise it's a nuanced point but do you see what i mean?

 

Just common sense as things stand. Play with the cards we have been dealt. Better the devil you know. Etc. It's called pragmatism: reality AS IT IS, not idealism: a destination never reached.

You started down this path from your own reasoning, changing the landscape for us all without asking us first.

As i say my sole point here is as things stand i prefer that the powers that be hold the view that "A qualified podiatrist may legally call himself a podiatrist without holding registration with the HCPC"

For clarity, leaving aside the deception aspect regarding their previous claims, are you opposed to that specific point?

 

No, that may suit your narrow view, but the reason we are where we are is simply due to two lies and a bucketful of arrogance.

 

ha funny how we perceive things, there was me thinking i had the broader view and you had the tunnel vision

Would you answer the question though?

 

Yes, there have been practitioners who have been struck off for misconduct and do continue to practice, unregulated, under the term FHP. The battle (whatever that is), or my concern, is not about preventing anyone who is `unqualified` (FHPs and FCAs are qualified) from offering foot care treatment, as I said before.

Let me be perfectly clear here; I am not campaigning anything. I support Mark in his appeal to clear his name from the false accusation that he has acted with intention to deceive. Some very inconvenient truths have been unearthed during his 3 year case, which I feel should be brought to the attention of the profession who have, ironically, been deceived by the HCPC. It is now up to the profession to do whatever they see fit with that information.

Whether or not statutory regulation is the preferable vehicle for us as a profession, is debatable. But, if we`re going to have a regulatory body then I`m sure I am not alone in wanting the government to follow the Law Commissions recommendation for a `full review of the existing protected titles and functions - and relevant offences`, which includes the current FtP & criminal prosecutions.

Yes, dishonesty is quite obviously useful for some.

You asked how I felt; feelings are an emotion, but as I said; I am not spear-heading a campaign.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but now we are aware of what the legislation actually means for the profession (that`ll be reality, then), any grandparenting scheme would have to include protection of tasks, according to training. The varied levels within the foot care industry are already in place with FHPs, FCAs, Pods & Pod surgeons. It is within the remit of the HCPC to assign protection of function, just as they did with Hearing Aid Dispensers, who have certainly not been adversely affected. As with the dentistry model. Despite what the HCPC and professional bodies claim, protection of function does not stifle professional progression. But you are quite correct, `There is no enthusiasm for podiatry full stop let alone such a massive and expensive change`.

Who knows, maybe following the review the `now unregulated` could become part of a tiered, regulated profession? Then again, maybe following the recent revelations a significant number of podiatrists will de-register, which will also change the regulatory landscape. Then again, we could just continue to stick our heads in the sand and leave things as they are.

 

Misconduct is not inevitably "dangerous practice". You could argue that poor note keeping could have dangerous consequences but i bet the worst is no worse than some unregulated providers out there. I don't begrudge any trained podiatrist carrying on trying to make their living as a FHP and certainly until the door is shut for all unregulated people i don't think we do our erstwhile colleagues justice by focusing AT ALL on making it impossible just for them to work unregulated. That seems to be a part of this whole thing and is the point of my posting. Especially, as we all seem to agree, the HPC have struck off some for spurious seeming reasons and considering we are talking about a persons livelihood, which is a huge thing, i doubt the burden of proof is set correctly high either.

igs:

Leaving things as imperfect as they already are is very often the wisest thing to do.

 

Well then, we shall agree to disagree.

 

perfectly happy to but can i know what point we disagree about? do you mean you hope the HPC will close the loophole allowing anyone struck off continuing to provide foot-care as a FHP?

 

I disagree with your opinion that the HCPC deliberately misleading the profession and the public was somehow beneficial. I also disagree with your assertion that we should be preventing FHPs and FCAs from working.

As i said, I would like to see the government follow the Law Commissions recommendations and perform a 'full review of the existing protected titles and functions' - and, more importantly, of the 'relevant offences`. That is; a review of both the current malicious and/or inappropriate FtP hearings & the dubious HCPC activity in bringing about criminal prosecutions. Which may, or may not, address the issue of practitioners who have rightly been struck off as unfit for practice due to gross misconduct, yet continue to do so on the vulnerable public. Again, something which you and I disagree upon.

Thanks for the discussion, but we are in danger of our posts being a bit samey now.

Cheers
Bel

 

Where did i say FHPs should be prevented from working? I said "unqualified providers" and you can take that and apply it to people of whichever level of training you think is insufficient.

In your case you think FHP training is sufficient, it seems. In fact you aren't even bothered about people who are sub-FHP qualified. I mean you did say this "my concern, is not about preventing anyone who is `unqualified` (FHPs and FCAs are qualified) from offering foot care treatment". Good that that is clear for all to see.

Well fence sat but clearly from the above you are not against FHPs or in fact anyone unqualified offering medical foot treatments but are against people with degree level training continuing to offer services as FHPs after they have fallen foul of the HCPC. Marks silence on the issue leads me to assume he feels the same.

You might avoid committing by saying that no you are in favour of the review etc but tell me what the likely outcome would be? If you push hard and demand change which of the changes might be most possible just to give the pushers something, to shut them up (thats how these things can work). Realistically they are not going to prevent all sub-degree people working by protecting function, short of their being loads of funding to upskill them all, it would upset the apple cart too much. So sub-degree providers will continue as they are, almost certainly. What they could do though, to throw the pushers a bone, is put some kind of injunction on previously HCPC registered pods to prevent them offering foot related services ever again as the small numbers mean that would not upset the status quo.

Out of curiosity i went back over HCPC strike offs since 2005. None were struck off for giving inadequate or dangerous podiatry treatment.

3x poor record keeping
1x prescribing outside of scope (unlikely to be possible if outside of NHS anyway)
1x bullying (could well have been clash of personalities at work)
2x indecent act
1x theft from NHS
1x insurance fraud
1x drink driving conviction

Of all the unqualified and variously trained unregulated providers out there what do you think their list would be like over the last 10 years? My fear is pushing the HCPC to change will at best protect the public from 1 flawed person in the UK a year (tbh only one seemed like an actual danger to visit) continuing to offer services among many other potentially flawed (who knows) providers. In the process all you will have achieved is giving the dog slightly more teeth to bite it's owner, or tighten the noose around our necks if you prefer melodrama.

You and Mark seem so sure of your righteous motivations and i would just like to ask you to think about these things a bit more.

 

Yes...

 

I have nothing further to add to this discussion, other than your assumptions are entirely incorrect.

Good bye.

 

Having read this thread I am confused, and I think others may be as well.

Is this person also confused about legislation ?

https://www.facebook.com/I-am-not-a-podiatrist-foot-care-by-Jane-Cooke-757635387656935/

or is this the Misuse of a Protected Title ???

 

This person is far from confused and is pushing the boundaries of the HCPC rules. By saying they are not a Podiatrist they still get the title in their advertising sentence, very clever.

Talking of sentences, it would be easier to read posts if we all wrote in proper sentences!:wacko:

 

"Not a podiatrist" says she is going to be working here http://www.legendsplus.co.uk/index.php where they say they are all SCP members and HCPC reg.

Reminds me of a clinic i know which advertises as podiatrist but the podiatrist owner books patients in with a FHP who works for him and of course the patient assumes they are seeing a qualified podiatrist. Will they be trying the same trick? One way to find out would be to phone in january and ask for a podiatry appointment with Jane. If they say jane is the nail cutting only clinic they advertise on mondays where patients need to be assessed by a podiatrist first all is good. If not call the HCPC Emergency hotline :deadhorse: