Dr Podiatrist?

good posts all, but again I have to post the question...
Why does the case for the negative habitually compare podiatrists only to medical practitioners and on occasion dentists, whilst completely ignoring the fact that numerous other professions benefit from the increased public perception of their scope of practice by virtue of their using the "dr" title? You can't answer arguments by only noticing the facts you choose to acknowledge...

David, chiropractors, osteopaths and acupuncturists do not prescribe any sort of medication at all, although a number will peddle glucosamine at you, although your sentiments are eloquently expressed. IMHO, I can't see any way that calling ourselves doctors would be detrimental to the profession and, like Julian, I can't see the help in worrying about what other professions think, do or say. In post no. 1, the basic question was asked as to why pods were being the nice guys in the absence of PhDs, while everybody else seemed to take full advantage of the honorary title. I tend to agree. I also think that perpetually negating the wonderful scope of practice we have as being somehow inferior to any of the professions mentioned a few lines back, just because we, quite observantly, don't have a bachelor of medicine and surgery, is a little insulting to those who went and still go in to bat for the rest of us to increse diagnostic imaging rights, S4 prescribing abilities and so forth. We all know some of these people and I'm sure they're tired enough of fighting while the rest of us reap the benefits and question whether we are really good enough to have them in the first place.

Perhaps I shouldn't only answer these posts at day's end...

 

Hi Adrian (and all),

Glass of red in hand, I'll try and offer a cohesive answer.

Firstly, we're all friends (or at least colleagues) here !

Secondly, and I am open to correction, no one posting on this thread is making an argument that calling ourselves "Dr" will be a panacea (cure-all) for our Professions issues.

As a profession, we are already exceedingly well known as Primary Care practitioners for the Foot. EVERY little old lady ( ), most adults and many teenagers already know that we deal with Feet. I'd say that like LL's post 2/3rds of all people already know about Podiatrists and corns, callous, ingrown nails etc. Where the public is either uninformed or more likely uncertain of Podiatrists, is in the more complex cases. For the average Community Pod, they are not the public's first thought with respect to minor surgical, Ulcers, Sporting problems etc, etc, etc. Now we as Professionals have all done personal marketing to local GPs, the Associations have run numerous Foot health weeks, our members speak on radio's (Cameron Kippen), and on TV. After literally decades of professional marketing (ok not like Chiropractors doing TV ads), we are still viewed, on the whole, as good old Adrian or Julian, they cut my corns.......

My argument is that yes we need to continue to promote our Higher skills, and even ramp up our efforts in that area, BUT, after 50+ years as being Chiropodists / Podiatrists we seem to be inextricably linked with Basic foot care.

So, my case is to continue and increase our Professional promotion, but, link it with a change in Title (and lets face it, you'll still be Adrian to your die hards, and I'll be JUlian to mine), to force a change in perception amongst those who we wish to use our Higher skills on. As I posted to Posalafin earlier, Dr. Phil Perlman (DPM), may he rest in peace, who worked in my district, was viewed as a cut above the average Pod, because whilst I was a Podiatrist, he was a Foot Doctor. This was the refrain from many of the people I encounter (staff at Hospitals where I work, Nurses I know, members of the public etc). Phil was an excellent Practitioner, but his legislated scope of Practice was exactly the same as mine.

No, adopting Doctor will not in one step change or improve the Public's view of us, it is just an external / powerful option that we "could" in concert with improved Promotion, use to further our case that we are Foot Doctors. Just like we as Practitioners we may prescribe Orthoses, we also prescribe Stretching so as to make a multi-faceted approach to problem solving.

We as a profession (both individually and via the association/council) have already expended vast amounts of time and money to promote ourselves, it has helped somewhat, but we seem to be missing that "X" factor.

Adopting the honorary title "Doctor" won't cost you or I a penny, but in all likelihood, many of the uniformed public will automatically view us as the Foot specialists.

An analogy: Adrian and Julian set up practice in the same Suburb.

Adrian has a slick, clean and modern clinic, he has a professional Secretary/Receptionist, he has all of the modern equipment, and personally dresses in Suit and Tie. He practices very well and has loads of patient information and liases with other Health practitioners.

On the other hand , Julian has a grotty practice, no secretary or a rude one, his clinic is ill-kept and depressing, he consults patients in a pair of old pants and a golf shirt with stains. Both Adrian and Julian have the same qualifications, and similar outcomes with patients......BUT which of the two will be PERCEIVED as more professional ?

Its all about public perception.....

Just my 2 cents....

:drinks

 

I believe that the answer to this argument has been held within the numerous posts made by apologetic Podiatrists:

"sorry if this offends anyone"

wishing not to tread on anyone's toes by voicing an opinion openly on this educational forum.

Surely this highlights the change in mindset required by us as a profession, something that a couple of extra letters before and/or after a practitioner's name will not remedy.

If we want to build our appeal, both inter-professionally and in the public eye, we must look to Messers Kirby, Payne and Spooner, fortunately also posters on this site, and mimic the conviction that their collective expertise conveys.

Until this happens, no matter the value of our profession to the community, there will maintain an undercurrent of self-deprication that will recurrently manifest like discussion(s).

Jair

 

Hi All,
Great to see that the discussion is going strong. And there have been many valuable posts. Very interesting reading, i must say.

I couldn't help but notice that many people are starting to ask the question "Where does it stop?"
The simple answer to that question is; Who knows!!!!!!!!!
And really, does it matter what others do or don't do? I mean, if all the nurses get together to change their title what business is it of ours? It’s not up to us. They'll fight for change and if it is found that they deserve the title then they'll get to use it. And the same goes with Psychologists etc etc. Even if we don't use it the title, the very same question arises "Where does it stop?" because other health professions will continue to seek change in this way...........i mean, physio's are already doing it. Why? Because they see the benefits and they deserve it. There is no other profession who can diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate musculoskeletal problems like a Physio (autonomously)........okay, i digress.....
We should be focusing on PODIATRISTS AND OUR GOALS. And one of our main goals as a profession is to promote ourselves and our skills so that the public will benefit. And it goes without saying that using the title is an effective way of doing this. It is by no means the only way, but it is a cost effective, powerful, way of making an impact.
Once the title is used (and i hope it will be) by the majority of Podiatrists i don't think Podiatry will ever be viewed in the same way. And that's a big win for Podiatry. We are foot doctors. There is no better way to describe a Podiatrists AND SO ITS ONLY NATURAL THAT WE USE THE TITLE.
Happy posting all
Cheers,

Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

G'day all!

May I offer a suggestion... possibly an attempt at a solution (for those in Victoria at least):

1) Qualification and allocationof S4 prescribing rights (and this will mean upskilling for all of us, I dont know any podiatrists who has completed the advanced life support component requirement, and the 'Advanced Pharmacology for Podiatrists' offerec curently at UniSA is a must)
2) Larger scope of rights in the current EPC system
3) Access to bulk billing of CT/bonescan medical imaging
4) Compulsary CPD

Implement these, and bring in the title, It'll make for better podiatrists across teh board, and earn us the right to boast our scope of practice. And one final important stein my opinion is national regsiration of Podiatrists instead of state level, make us all equal....

My motivated idealistic 2 cents!
:drinks

 

Why would you want to do that for? The evidence is that it does not work (see this thread)

 

Good point, but CPD goes far beyond just attending seminars and conferences. I know in my own perosnal experience, my CPD has changed the way I practice, and will continue to change my practice as I continue to learn and upskill myself.:sinking:

 

After observing all the threads on this topic, it is clear that the majority of posts are all for using the title. I feel that somehow this has to be resolved and doing this is the hard part.
1. A possible Survey could be used to assess how all podiatrist (Vic) feel about changing to Dr?
2. Or the APODA and registration board decide on behalf of the profession
3. Or do podiatrists just begin calling themselves Drs and let others follow as time goes on?

What's everyones thoughts?:dizzy:

 

as the regulations in Victoria already allow the title
see http://www.podboardvic.vic.gov.au/cmsfiles/titledr.pdf
it is something that the A.Pod.A/A.Pod.C need to decide upon

 

I would not jump to that conclusion. Since this thread started, I have spoken to ~15 Vic Podiatrists in the last week or so and specifically asked them how they felt about this issue. Only one thought it was a good idea.

 

Craig,
Earlier in this thread, you posted that some" Physio's thought we'd look foolish", and, then you said ,"you never said if you were for or against" the idea, now you've posted that only around 1 in 15 Pod's that you've spoken to thinks its a good idea.

Sounds like you "may" be against the idea.....

It would be great if you could post a conclusive opinion of yours (not some Physio's, not some other Pod's) ?

 

Personally, I don't care.

If some want to do it, I do not see why they should not. If others do not want to do it, I do not see why they should not.

BUT, why should those who want to and those who do not want to do it, try and impose their views on others by pursing some sort of APodA policy for or against it. Why go down an avenue that has the potential to be divisive?

I merely posted my observation above that very few appear to actually be supportive of this proposal to counter the perception that often happens in forums about the support for or against something. Forums are places to put arguments for and against things, but would never be a good guide of the actual support for or against an issue that is out there.

 

Craig that is a very fair and honest opinion:good:

 

I have been through this debate before ... and my views have never changed. The previous debate was the number of sets of letters after ones name. My view has always been to judge me on the quality my work (either clinical; academic; conference presentation; etc) and not on how many letters I have after my name; my title; or how long it takes to introduce me.

Some will be aware of my somewhat cynical view of conference presentations --- the quality of a presentation is usually inversely proportional to the length of the speakers introduction.

 

Who's judging who?

 

The point I am trying to make is that the quality of my work is the same regardless of using a title or not or if I use a whole of set of letters after my name or not.

If I choose to use whatever title or not or whatever set of letters after my name or not, it does not make be better or worse at my job.

(Look at the thread on The search for a happy podiatrist - have a guess how many of those people Lousie visited had at least a few sets of letters after their names - my guess would be most of them)

 

Fair enough Craig,

That's your prerogative and no arguments from me.

The discussion isn't really about you, me, Sal, Adrian et al...its more about our Profession collectively, and seems to be straying from the core of the discussion. As its gone 100+ posts and 5 pages long, there seems to be a genuine demand and need for debate on the subject.

No one posting here has made the case that using or not using the title (or letters after ones name) makes one automatically a "better person", or indeed a "better practitioner". Have they?

 

Spur,

I agree with you. The majority of posts seem for the affirmative. Since, as Stephen Tucker pointed out, the board's policy appears to have changed, I suggest that you simply start using it.

In contrast to Craig's experience, I spoke to eight pods in the last day who had decided to adopt the title and had a very enlightening chat with another prominent Victorian podiatrist two weeks ago, who named another 21 already using it (several whole practices in some cases)..

To declare my hand, I joined their ranks several weeks ago and have had no negative experiences thus far, but have found public perception to have been extremely positive. I still get patients to call me by my first name regardless and thats unlikely to change. however, the only way we'll ever be looking back on this in 20 years and wondering what all the fuss was about because it's become common is if people simply make the change now. The financial cost amounts to new business cards...

 

Totally agree Craig.. :drinks

 

Hi Spur,
If i had to choose one of your options it'd have to be no. 3!!
I think we should decide on our own terms. There exsists no legal barrier and some want to use the title others don't. Option 3 gives the Podiatrists the ability to go with whatever they feel most comfortable with, without going against any association, board, or legal rulings!
My 2 cents!
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrists)

 

Hi All,
Of all the Podiatrists i've spoken to and enquired about (8 in total) all have adopted the title (here in victoria).
There has been one negative complaint with regards to using the title and NOT having a PhD.........which i subsequently found out was made by someone within the profession.
Other than that its all been very positive, pateints and other health professions (GP's included) alike!
Cheers,
Dr Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Sal, what about masseurs adopting the title of Doctor?

 

Clearly shows how we ALL can jump to wrong conclusions based on biased sampling (which decision makers do all the time). Those that I mostly spoke to recently were NOT recent grads and were predominantly working in the public sector or in a multidisciplinary private clinic. I suspect that those who others spoke to would have been predominatly in the private sector.

 

Come on Ron, compare apples with apples...

When the federal government recognises a masseur's training and scope of practice as allowing them to diagnose, order medical imaging, inject any sort of medication or perform surgery and get private health or medicare rebates accordingly, then by all means, they should consider adopting the title. Podiatrists fit into all these, which a number of other professions who use the title do not (I'm speaking specifically of anaesthetics and surgery here), and yet we're debating about whether we should.

Craig is correct, incidentally. All of the people with whom I'm spoken who have adopted the title are in the private sector. Only one was a recent graduate. I don't see that any of this has bearing on the facts as outlined in this thread, apart from the fact that attitudes and insecurities can often tend to reflect work environment.

Seriously though, the masseur bit is hardly helpful. As we've established here, there are different levels of clinician and as we've pointed out ad nauseum, podiatrists rank within the top level, excluding levels within each individual prodfession, i.e. primary contact practitioners. It's pointless comparing a pod to a medical practitioner as if there weren't numerous levels within medicine itself. If you don't agree, ask a 3rd year resident who's stuck on a 36 hour shift how empowered they feel..

 

The reason I raised was the potential for bias when sampling for peoples opinion. The adoption of any policy or not by APodA or APodC is likely to be divisive. The Boards of these organisations sometimes have to make divisive decisions (and I have been party to some of these in the past) ...this is one issue that they do not need to make a decision or policy on. There is nothing stopping those that want to do this from doing it.

 

Hi Atlas,
If masseurs feel that they have the right to use the title, if they believe that they've earned that right based upon their training and scope of practice, then it is up to them to fight for those changes. If it is found that they are truly deserving of the title (and i wouldn't be involved in that process) then i would have no problems recognizing it at all. Just like i have no problems calling a Dentists Dr. Or if i come across a Physio who's started using it..........
It is not for me to say who should and who shouldn't adopt the title when it comes to other health professions. It lies in their hands.
Hope this answers your question. And keep up the great posts!!
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Some muscle doctors have done a few years intensive training. They are accredited and have workcover/TAC provider numbers. They get private health rebates. Their hands-on feel and prowess is probably better than most podiatrist and physiotherapists IMO. They can provide a referral to VIC House for instance to request an MRI, which is the all-round gold-standard diagnostic test in relation to most musculo-skeletal imaging.

Have you got a problem with them calling themselves Doctor?


On the other hand, we have most pods that have done a 3 year course; little formal training and understanding or S4 med. A chunk of these pods will only restrict themselves to essentially primary care...and yet are included in the pidgeon hole of podiatrist-come-doctor?


If we as podiatrists can qualify for the right to call ourselves Doctor, then surely, so do massage therapists with provider numbers in the private and 3rd party sectors.

 

Ron, I agree with you. Also, I routinely send to Vic House for MRIs, as I believe you know since I've owed you a coffee for about 6 months...

Whether or not a masseur, myotherapist, tree surgeon or fax doctor calls themselves by the title is not really the concern of the podiatry profession. Other fields are really only posted here for the basis of comparison. having made the latter, my question is, why should we as idividuals stop others, whose day to day practice may be at varying levels of sophistication, from using a title that as Craig pointed out, there is no reason not to. If you don't misrepresent yourself as another protected profession, or as having a doctorate of philosophy, this isn't something that board policy needs to dictate further than they already have. Quite recently, the wording was altered to reflect the fact that Victorian podiatrists may use the title if they so wish. If people are uncomfortable with this, then they should refrain until such time as they observe it to be the norm and even then, they are free to desist. Their discomfort, however, is not a reason to stop Sally, Craig, Julian, Richard or anyone else who has posted on here from adopting it for themselves, if they choose to. Fifteen years ago, osteopaths were in this same boat in this state..

Personally, arguments aside, with your decade of higher level training, I'd regard you as one of the more likely candidates deemed worthy of a bit of recognition for once..

 

Except Julian works in QLD, where strictly adhering to the letter of the law, only Medical Practitioners, Dentists or PhD's can be called "Doctor" !!!!!....or Surgeon for that matter....

Queensland....the smart state....igs:

 

Just out of curiosity... and by no means to be taken the wrong way, and I work in the private sector, but is using the Dr. title in some way effort to seem more superior to bring patients through the door, is a sort of competition way, in the private sector?
?

 

I suppose it COULD be a form of one-upmanship.

But seriously, who amongst us is crying out for more Business? I'm beating them off with a stick....!:craig:

Noting that many Vic Pods have adopted, just wait for some negative publicity from the AMA or similar.....don't lose sleep over it, but do expect it !

 

From the US this year, the AMA position on Dr title:

Get the hint?

 

The hint i get is that Podiatrists have just as much right to use the title as medical practitioners and dentists!!!
GREAT POST!
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

From what I understand, that AMA policy was in response to the increasing profileration of doctorate programs for health professionals (eg the Dr Nurse)

 

Craig

You are correct.

However, this official AMA position endorsing the use of the Dr title by podiatrists (yes they do a 4 year graduate podiatry degree with a Doctor in its name, I know), is more meaningful in the context of considering the other health professions that use the title in the US (eg optometrists, psychologists etc). These professions are conspicuously absent from the AMA policy, which says something at least about the status of our profession in that country, and perhaps also, to some degree, in our own corner of the world.

The hint is: if the AMA are comfortable with podiatrists using the title in the USA ahead of all other professions except dentistry, then there should be very modest attention paid to the local AMA or others if they complain about the lack of quality from our 4 year podiatry degrees.

It's just a couple of letters isn't it?

LL

 

Bear in mind though thatthe American podiatry residency (as it's now known) is based on a four year graduate program wth sugrical components, not on a four year undergraduate program, or a 2+2 year undergrad/graduate program soon to be implemented. Prerequesite knowledge is extensive at the undergraduate level and they require an exam to even get in (see http://www.aacpm.org/html/careerzone/require.asp for details).

Their 'basic' training to be a podiatrist is far greater than ours...? :dizzy:

 

Hi All,
Has anyone seen the new UWA postgrad prgrams? I think these programs and programs like this are a great step forward in terms of educational development. The profession is really forging ahead. Exciting times!!! With these programs and the very productive discussion regarding the Dr title (and many people already using the title which i think is just GREAT) i think Podiatry's status will be boosted greatly!
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Cheers Sal,

Yeah I have seen them, and think they are fantastic. I think that ALL podiatrists should, at some stage in their carreer, do some postgraduate work to upskill themselves, and these courses are fantastic. UniSA also has a great Masters by coursework setup (slightly bias opinion).

Cheers again!

 

Hi Adrian,
I couldn't agree with you more! I think all Pod's should do some postgrad work. UniSA has a great program (undergrad and postgrad, also a little bias)........and great lecturers too.
Cheers,

 

Hi Sal,

Just a quick query....

When you next Register with the Victorian Pod Reg Board, will you register as "Dr. Sal...." (if you have that option) ?

Ciao
Julian