HPC Registered, but who runs your club?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

On the Society’s ‘Feet For Life’ pages, I found the following relating to membership:

Q5. If I join the Society, will I be treated differently to members who were previously state registered?

‘No, all members will be treated the same. You will be able to attend branch meetings, vote in elections and participate fully in Society activities’

I called the society on Tuesday 12th July at approx 12.25 and asked about membership. The person who answered the phone said that only ‘Associate’ membership would be given to HPC registrants who had not been state registered before.

After reminding the person of the wording on the society website, she informed that it was a mistake and should not have been posted there.

Within minutes, the website was taken down and when it was put online again, answer to question No5 was replaced with the following:

‘Both members and associate members will be able to attend branch meetings, participate fully in Society activities and receive indemnity insurance. At present associate members are not able to vote, all other benefits will remain’

The society has realised that it is time to bury the past. Apartheid is dead. No blacks and no whites. Every practitioner (chiropodist/podiatrist that is) is now green. Will the dark green registered practitioner get into his own queue?

The HPC has on behalf of the government, collected a considerable amount of money before the 9th of July this year in order to protect the public and as a result, it has helped to create the Foot Health Practitioner who is fully qualified to treat foot disorders. The society continues to add fuel to the politics of our very messy profession even though it may have even less influence over future legislation, than it had before.

In order to create proper closure there has to be a bitter pill to swallow. Those who have earned a living from Chiropody/Podiatry but without state recognition – until now – are facing the formation of a three tier system with a mass extraction of cash by ‘The Nanny State’, and more cut price CPD modules than you can shake a stick at! Even our Grandparents could join the society. The society has a real chance to get its house in order and lead a united profession and remove the politics and false professionals once and for all. Grasp the nettle!

Markus Mellisham
Registered Foot thing..person whatever

 

Markus

As one of the principal lobbyists of the ‘status quo’ for Society membership, I feel obliged to give a response to your submission. In doing so, I should make it clear that the following is my own personal view and does not necessarily reflect the position of the Society’s Council, of which I am currently a member.

In July 2004, Council decided to relax eligibility criteria to allow HPC grandparented registrants full membership without first achieving certain benchmarks – currently LA certification in addition to their HPC registration. However, this decision required agreement from membership as it changed our Memorandum and Articles, and as such a motion was submitted by Council to effect these changes at our AGM in May. Following much debate it was decided by a majority to reject this motion at this time, although it does not prevent Council from seeking changes in the future, if it so desires.

Council’s view was similar to your own insofar as it wished to embrace all new registrants in the hope that unity could be achieved by offering them parity of membership and all the benefits such a position would give. My argument against that was that the issue of grandparenting is still very much ‘alive’ as there is currently a review of healthcare regulation instigated by the Westminster Parliament and a process with the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee (which I instigated), which will explore all aspects of grandparenting adopted by the HPC. My feeling was that these processes should be exhausted before the professional body makes irrevocable changes to its membership procedure.

I would also like to say that I am still in favour of some form of test of competency, just as there was during the last grandparenting event in the 1960s.

It may be helpful if I can use the analogy of motor car driving at this point.

All of us have to sit a driving test before we are issued with a full licence. It could be argued that many full licence holders drive badly and that some learner drivers have exemplary skills. But no government would grant a licence to new drivers on the basis that they self-certify themselves by claiming they have never had an accident or performed any illegal manoeuvres during their learning process. A test is a benchmark of standards – as flawed as it may be. But it reassures the public that the individual has achieved a certain level of competency at a certain point in time. That process will not change in the foreseeable future.

I also feel that if such a test was introduced for podiatry then your entry into the main body of the profession would be welcomed without question. The problem is at the moment there could be a few, or many, of your colleagues from the ‘independent’ sector who have had no formal training or education and who may very well pose a danger to the patient and to the profession. The difficulty we have at present with the HPC is that we have no way of differentiating between the two.

I hope that you do not regard the foregoing as insulting or condescending in any way; it is not intended to be either, for I too would welcome unity within my profession. With unity we could achieve so much more - but not at any cost.

Regards

Mark Russell

 

Markus

As an aside, you gave the impression you were registered in your post, but I could not find any individuals with your surname on the HPC website this evening. Would you be so kind as to clarify who you are registered with?

Mark Russell

 

Car Drivers!

Hi All the Marks,

Quote from Mark, "But no government would grant a licence to new drivers on the basis that they self certify themselves."

Aah Mark, but they did! I have known many drivers who have never taken a test before, (What test?), and they were very successful at missing people and everything else that jumped out in front of them, lampposts, telegraph poles, policemen, even me, (Now don't be like that!)?

Regards,

Colin. (He might be using a false name you know, terrible! Or he might be one of those dreaded FHP's.)?

 

Well Colin, I've spent the last five years castigating colleagues and friends for refusing to contribute to online debate, especially when I know they have something valuable to add. I've taken the view that one of the best way to build bridges is by open and honest communication, even where particular issues may be difficult and polarised. However the danger always exists that debate can be destructive where individuals submit misleading and inaccurate and/or malicious and vexatious material - as has been pointed out to yourself on more than one occassion recently - the corollary being greater fragmentation and disunity. I have to say that, unfortunately, we appear to have a sizeable minority within the podiatric community who are content in being destructive and dishonest, and in doing so, they engender discord and resentment from those who may have more altruistic motives. On reflection, I have to admit that perhaps I have been wrong about this profession all along and that debate cannot reconcile the various factions that make up the foot health community, and in that respect maybe it's time that I followed the example of those colleagues who prefer 'lurking' to 'contributing'.

Regrettably yours

Mark Russell

 

Lurking!

Hi Mark,

I must agree with you, purity is rare in the human race. However, this Forum at any rate allows give and take within the RULES, provided,

"Inaccurate and/or malicious and vexatious material," I am afraid is always in the eye of the beholder!

Truth may also be in the eye of the beholder. Truth to some is an anathema to others.

Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of the Twentieth Century with his thinking? To others he is the Devil Incarnate!

I will not make any further comment other than, LURKING, I bet you cannot do it? Posting to some is stronger than nicotine! There ought to be an NHS. treatment to cure it!!!

Regards,

Colin.

 

Hi Mark

You say:

"I also feel that if such a test was introduced for podiatry then your entry into the main body of the profession would be welcomed without question. The problem is at the moment there could be a few, or many, of your colleagues from the ‘independent’ sector who have had no formal training or education and who may very well pose a danger to the patient and to the profession."

Whilst I uderstand your concerns about saftey I cannot agree that it is only the former none state registered that are the concern. Any invovelment in the medico legal work where you are exposed to practices and proceedures undertaken (in both grandparented and state people) that have led to a patient successfully suing makes this obvious!

For me, taking into consideration what I have said above:

1. Were such a test now introduced post registration ending I could only consider it a underhanded move.
2. Were this test introduced and not applied to every single podiatric practitioner on the HPC register, including all former state registered (yourself as well), I could only consider it to be diabolical.
3. After 12 years no one has convinced me of a single advantage of coming into the main body of the profession, if by the main body you mean the Society.

As I hope you are aware there is nothing personal intended in this Mark.

Ian

 

hpc registered, but who runs your club

All practitioners practising Chiropody will have passed a test of competency
ie. Diploma in Chiropody in my case from the West Midlands School of Chiropody, no Insurance Company would insure with out such evidence, which is why the HPC insist on proof of insurance when Grandparenting.
This attitude from the Society of wanting to change the goalpost`s because they did not get their own way is surely their greatest
"EMBARRASSMENT" and reflect`s very badly on their credibility to call
themsleve`s the main body, when they are so biased.
All this was decided in the period of Consultation and the Joint steering
group and now the society want`s to go back 12 year`s.
It should do the "HONOURABLE" thing and accept the result and move on
or disband.

p.s As a foot note no other PROFESSIONAL BODY has a two teir membership

 

Ian

I have a lot of respect for what you write and of course I do not consider your comments as personally inflammatory or otherwise. With regard to your concerns.

>>1. Were such a test now introduced post registration ending I could only consider it a underhanded move.<<

I consider what the HPC has done as underhand. We were assured during early consultation that there would be a graduated process for grandparented practitioners whereby they would be scrutinised regarding standards of proficiency and ability, and where necessary, additional training provided to ensure they met basic minimum standards. That did not occur, and I would contest the profession – including yourself – has been prejudiced as a result. I hold a number of written statements from partners and others associated with the HPC who condemn the lack of rigour in vetting registrant applications. One in particular, who also sits on the GMC, calls the process a complete farce, and suggests that anyone who reads a basic textbook of podiatry could gain entry onto the register. I completely understand your frustrations with this, but I would submit that the HPC has done no-one any favours whatsoever by taking the route they did. The process was flawed; it should be rectified.

>>2. Were this test introduced and not applied to every single podiatric practitioner on the HPC register, including all former state registered (yourself as well), I could only consider it to be diabolical.<<

Those on the state register already have taken an exacting test of competency. Three or four years of full-time study with year end examinations would constitute a substantial undertaking in my book. Are you seriously suggesting the ‘independent’ schools have just as exacting standards? If so, why haven’t they been recognised before? But part of this question, I suspect, relates to your preceding paragraph where you wrote:

>>Whilst I understand your concerns about safety I cannot agree that it is only the former none state registered that are the concern. Any invovelmentin the medico legal work where you are exposed to practices and procedures undertaken (in both grandparented and state people) that have led to a patient successfully suing makes this obvious! <<

….and I fully agree with you here. There clearly is an issue about post graduate education and competency, and for many years I have advocated some form of recertification for all practitioners. When I first graduated back in 1983 I helped form the Fife Postgraduate Group and was a keen advocate of continuing podiatric education. It was a source of great frustration that our meetings were poorly attended - often with less than a handful of stalwarts out of a potential of two or three hundred. Part of the problem is that the marketplace for podiatry has not been fully developed and as a result, graduates quickly lose the necessary momentum for professional development – unless they are otherwise motivated. Unfortunately we seem to need the ‘carrot and stick' principle to maintain forward momentum – and not just in this profession either. Create the right conditions for people to flourish, but retain some form of benchmark to ensure standards do not fall below a certain level. I’ve no problem with this, but I suspect a sizeable minority – on all sides of the professional spectrum - may very well have. Don’t you agree?

>>3. After 12 years no one has convinced me of a single advantage of coming into the main body of the profession, if by the main body you mean the Society.<<

Perhaps not. I resigned over 10 years ago as have many other practitioners before and since. But I rejoined again last year with the intention of bringing my views to the fore. If I, and my colleagues, within the Society can do what we intend to do over the next couple of years, maybe you and others may change your view. All I ask is that you have an open mind. For your information I have been advised today that the Government have announced a Health Select Committee Enquiry into podiatry provision – not least because of the lobbying by the Society over the last few years and also I suspect because of the various lobbying from myself and others through the media and directly to politicians. You may not agree with all the various stances we have taken, but they all contribute to highlighting the issues the wider profession faces in its delivery of care. Hopefully we do what the HPC has failed to do, and get the ground rules right so we can all sing from the same hymn-sheet at last. Then we might just achieve something we all can be proud of.

I hope you can come along for the ride.

Best wishes

Mark

 

Possible Breach of Confidence?

Hi Herbert,

You know what they say, "If you throw mud for long enough some of it will stick!"

I wonder if Sec.2 of the Official Secrets Act still applies to partners and others associated with the HPC.? And does the HPC. know about these possible breaches of confidence if not LAW? Maybe someone should inform them???

Regards,

Colin.

 

'The Whistle-blowers Charter'!

No Mark,

If you are going to make comments concerning this Thread, please do it in public so the world can read it! Truth is relative to the person and the view point of that person! If this goes on much longer there will be quite a few of us in the 'frame' with you know who anyway!

Could this, however, be a smoke screen to get away from the 'Briefing Note of the HPC. to Scotland', perhaps? But we have to wait until September to see the results of them! I can wait I wonder who else will!

And like other comment along the way malice is liken unto a cancers thing of the mind, it is directly against my Faith! However, some of us make Job's trials and tribulations look like a kiddies tea party when compared to here in this Thread! Where has all the sweetness and light gone? There can only be one winner and I have a strong fancy that it will be the HPC.! After all what have we got to look forward to as an alternative. Associate membership or worse!!!

And yes I know all about 'The Whistle-blowers Charter'! The question is does the HPC.?

Regards,

Colin. (Now I will attempt to hold my silence for the next 24hrs., not even as a Lurker. I will switch off my computer with a top quivering lip whilst taking the Pet and getting a life, no I won't add the next one you'll need your Crystal ball for that!).

 

Dear Mark

Thank you for your respect. I value it.

You said:

"I consider what the HPC has done as underhand. We were assured during early consultation that there would be a graduated process for grandparented practitioners whereby they would be scrutinised regarding standards of proficiency and ability, and where necessary, additional training provided to ensure they met basic minimum standards."

As a grandparented individual, the process of grandparenting was never put across to me (nor many others I'm sure) in that way. To this extent I would agree that the process was underhanded from your perspective. However, as it was ommited as information to us I think you can see that it now appears to be something freshly introduced and makes us very suspicious. Perhaps we are both suffering from underhandedness!!

You said:

"Those on the state register already have taken an exacting test of competency. Three or four years of full-time study with year end examinations would constitute a substantial undertaking in my book."

In short I do not think this argument works. I suspect a good many on the register may well have not gone through the three years of uni etc and, as you acknowlege, many may well be substatially behind in any CPD. I do not believe you can progress this argument forward without a radical and courageous approach.

"Are you seriously suggesting the ‘independent’ schools have just as exacting standards?"

As I'm sure you are aware I have never believed this to be the case. In the areas I am trained I would argue for competency on a par with others. On areas where my training has been insufficient I acknowlege need for education.

My reason for arguing for across the board tests for competencey ( even those who would assess must be tested - the treatment of some of the route B people in interviews has been nothing short of abhorent) is that it is the only way to get a level playing field. Each of us must swallow our respected pride in doing it. To progress this there needs to be a positive environment created. An environment where people feel valued, their limited skills recognised before their lack of skills is exposed.

I know that there are areas in my skills bag that need to be re-tuned and it is possible that I could be one of those that would need to re-educate in certain areas. But the current environment of disrespect would never entice me and I could never trust a system that, at this stage, failed to start from as level a playing field as possivble.

More could be said but I am tiring even myself now!!

1. across the board tests for competency
2. these tests are not related to registration but to determin educational
needs and skill updating needs.
3. Where needs are recognised these educational processes are government
funded, even for those in the private sector
4. Approached like this you create an potentially positive atmosphere

The field is completely leveled, funded educational opportunity provided, registration not under threat unless shown to be incompetent. If this is presented as an opportunity to progress then who can seriously disagree. ( I can think of some but you know what I mean)

Ian

 

Goal Posts!

Hi All,

I'm back! I had a good reason to move the GOAL POSTS and that is a very good reason for not keeping my word?!? I must point out that this refers to no one referred to in above posts etc.!!!

Regards,

Colin,

PS. Well I've missed some of you all anyway!

 

A Level Playing Field!

Hi All,

Just found your Post Ian! Thank you for providing not just a level playing field but I think as fair as it is possible to get! Cannot argue with that! I might try later? Congratulation on a well meaning good Post written when obviously tired, (What I would consider to be difficult circumstances?!)!

Hope to hear from you again when you have had a good nights sleep if that is what it takes!

Regards,

Colin. (From another Grandparented Individual who knows his limitations and keeps to them in my case as a CHIROPODIST!!!).

 

Ian

You suggest,

No problem with that but I think you’re being a little naïve if you think government is going to fund educational programmes even though it were to ensure minimum standards for registration. They would take the view, rightly in my opinion, that responsibility for CME lies with the professional – not the State. Even in the 1960s, aspiring registrants to the state register via the grand-parenting route had to fund their own examinations, which were held over three days. My father was a grand-parented chiropodist having done his ‘training’ in the army during national service in Suez and sat his examinations at the London Foot Hospital. He received no assistance with his preparation nor his costs of travel and accommodation or his fees. I don’t believe government proposed any different this time during the consultation phase, but it was understood the process would be similar. What changed I do not know – it may just have been a case of expediency by the regulator – but it has had adverse ramifications for the profession. And I include all sectors in that term.

This thread started by someone criticizing the Society for its graduated approach to full membership and I tried to explain how this position has come about. Associate members receive all the benefits that full members do with the exception of being able to vote in elections and at General Meetings. Given that 80% of the membership doesn’t bother to vote at either, I don’t think that’s a great loss, do you? In addition, associate members via the grandparenting route are actively encouraged and assisted to take the necessary courses to enable them to graduate to full membership – currently LA certification. That way, in my view, the professional body still has a benchmark for standards –accepting all the valid points you made regarding post-graduate development.

Kind regards

Mark

 

Hi Mark

"I think you’re being a little naïve if you think government is going to fund educational programmes even though it were to ensure minimum standards for registration."

No. Just ever so cheeky

I recognise your points and the reason for your posting Mark.

We recently had a former state person enquire about joining our branch meetings. Why? Well I could be cynical and say it was a concerted Society effort to win us over but I happen to think they are genuine. The main reason they gave was the level of enthusiasm, the genuine, excellent comraderie, committment to learning that he sensed amongst us (it is not uncommon for people to give each other whole nursing home work). We have in mind, and in the process of planning, likely extra meetings in a year to run a 4 year cycle of updating the core subjects of CPD and LA can be found for training in. We budget good sums for this and will look to the appropriate people to provide this.

One problem in all of this is that many of us are not convinced of all of the way in which state medicine is practiced, nor their approaches to dealing with patients. Why should we then chose to be part of something that we may consider interferes with practices and innovations that we find work well?

Ian

 

I don't think anyone in the NHS would say it's an ideal system either. There are clearly problems in how podiatry care is delivered and to whom and if you've read anything I've written on the subject over the last five years you will know my views are not dissimilar to your own. But private practice is not the panacea some would make out either. If I were a commissioning manager with the NHS I would have serious concerns with the way some practices are run and patient care managed, should the patient choice agenda be extended to primary care.

However, that said, it would appear likely that we might be having a Health Select Committee Enquiry into podiatry later this year and if so, it will offer the profession an opportunity to appraise MPs as to what our needs are and what system of care would work best for podiatry and its patients. It is an opportunity that should not be squandered for it could establish podiatry practice in the UK on a much greater platform that we have right now, for the absolute benefit of future generations of podiatrists to come. Again, if we approach this with unified aims and objectives, we could achieve so much more. We failed to address our shortfalls when the new regulatory regime came into play - and suffered as a result. Might we learn from our mistakes this time around?

Mark

 

Mark

>However, that said, it would appear likely that we might be having a Health Select Committee Enquiry into podiatry later this year and if so, it will offer the profession an opportunity to appraise MPs as to what our needs are and what system of care would work best for podiatry and its patient....snip.
Might we learn from our mistakes this time around?

Totally agree, time to bury the hatchet, and not in each other's head.

Cameron
Hey, what do I know?

 

Hi Mark

I'm all for learning.

Ian

 

You know what Mark? I think I agree with you! Blimey! (Takes a quick trip to the foot of his stairs). I think Grandparenting was a farce, from the point of view of a grandparented SMAE person " Yes SMAE!! SMAE!! SMAE!! Mooohahahahah!!" (Visions of old SRChs shrinking away Dracula style at the horrible mention!) Ahem. Anyway, I expected a much rougher ride than I got, certainly some kind of exam or assessment, and I would have welcomed it with open arms. Why? Cos I would have passed mate, that's why! He who has knowledge has nothing to fear my friend. He who has no wisdom to go with it however, is a b**** liability at least. And herein, boys and girls, lies the problem. I'll take any exam you want me to. Bring it on, big boy. But the crusty old b****r down the road, State Registered, who has a filthy surgery and an even filthier attitude to his patients, doesn't? Cos he did a 'Degree' in some dusty old halls about a zillion years ago? Investigate sex and travel I say, Mein Herr. I would love to sit side by side in an exam room with the likes of him and watch his brain go into meltdown, her her! And until that sticking point is resolved...........Put us all in a big room, lock the door, lay out the papers, and let's see "just who gets out of here alive man"

 

The Final Hatchet!

Hi Cameron,

Quote," Time to bury the hatchet and not in each other's head."

Sorry Cameron but there could be at least one hatchet heading in someones direction in September by all accounts?

Perhaps this might be the final solution to the problem we seem to have here, then again?

Regards,

Colin. (Now where did I put that tin hat?)!

 

Hi Mark!

Why won't the Society give me Student membership?
I rang the a couple of months ago and said that I was doing the APU BSc(Hons) Healthcare Practices (Podiatry) degree.

They said:
1)Who? The didn't know who the APU were.
2)As this was not a 'recognised degree' I couldn't get student membership, only an 'approved degree' would do to qualify for student membership.
3)I could however get associate membership.

Now I don't want to be an Associate. I'm very happy with the BChA. I just want to be able to access the Society's resources for research purposes when writing essays and I think your forum would be interesting. I have full indemnity insurance with the SMAE(who I have no wish to abandon whatever) so why pay for insurance twice by being an associate?

Also I notice that LA is the requisite for full Membership. So when I've done my LA cert next year as part of my 'non-approved' degree, then I can get full membership can I? -Even though the Society poopooed the fact that I am bothered enough to try to further my Podiatry education? Something which many previous SRCh haven't done.

As you probably know I am an HPC partner and I think the HPC is great (I digress). But I feel that the current climate is that as far as the Society is concerned there IS no hoop that is high enough for us SMAE people to jump.
Even though I applied for the job, sat the interview with Pam Sabine and Paul Frowen, and was categorically told by them that I was qualified, because I asked.

I now sit on various HPC panels.

So please give us a break.

Wonderingly,

Robin.

 

That may be true. I'm not sure if the APU has been validated by the HPC, but if it hasn't then what you have been told is accurate.

Why indeed. But if you want to access the Society's resources then you should be prepared to pay for it. If I wanted to access SMAE's website I would have to pay their membership. Why should the Society be any different?

I'm sure you could - just fill out the application form and enclose your HPC registration and LA certification, together with your cheque and you can join the club. Look forward to seeing you.

Well they let me join so I guess the hoops aren't that difficult!

Good for you. I hope you have a nice time spending our money!

You're picking on the wrong guy, Robin. I'm chilled.

Best wishes

Mark

 

Robin

Just to correct part of the previous post, I have it on good authority that the course at APU - the Bsc (Hons) Health Care Practice (Podiatry), which is the degree conversion, has been accredited by the university and because there is no practical component, it does not require HPC validation. The Diploma of Credit (Local Anaesthesia) was validated by the HPC in May and would be the equivalent to the old PART B of the Society exams.

It may be that by 'approved' the Society means a course at one of the established schools - I'm not sure. But if you are keen on membership and wish to pusue it, why don't you write to Joanna Brown and explain your position?

Regards

Mark

 

Interesting that the SCP has as one of it's criteria for full membership, that the member must possess an LA Cert.
Because I know several full SCP members who don't.............

But Mark is quite right Robin.
If you want to access the SCP members site and all it contains, you have to pay for the priveledge.
Cheers,
davidh

 

Hi Mark!

Thanks for the reply!
I'm not picking on you at all, honest.
I'm sorry if you feel that way.
I want to friends really I do!
So please don't take offence.
I find your posts stimulating, even though we often disagree...

I just found your view a bit hard to understand in that I'm doing a BSc top-up, which does get marked. I will have a LA cert and am an HPC Partner and have been for a year, but that still wouldn't be enough to be viewed as safe?

When I rang the Society they said that I couldn't pay for Student membership. I did ask to do just that.
It was Associate membership or nothing. Those were the choices given to me.

I know some people do have Associate Membership of the Society and BChA Membership, but they are then insured twice. I asked if i could get student membership for the reasons above.

So if I get my LA cert next year and was able to get Full Society Membership, would I still in your proposals to parliment need to sit a re-validation exam? Or would grandparented members still be lesser members if you see what I mean?

Cheers,

Robin.

 

The 1960 Fiasco!

Hi David,

Quote:- "Interesting that the SCP has as one criteria for full membership, that the member must possess an LA. Cert. Because I know several full SCP members who don't................ ."

Are these SCP members,

1. Those grandparented in in the 1960 fiasco?

2. Or are these members Diploma level qualified and no attempt or encouragement given to obtain LA. Cert., (Or was the opportunity just not there for them to obtain this Cert.?). What would they do with it if they had it?

3. I wonder what the percentage of SCP. membership is Degree Level and what percentage is Diploma Level at this time?

Then again it should not concern some of us for we do not want to join, do we?

Difference been before HPC. we did not need to bother are heads about these things for it did not matter. You could practice without being effected by this group of Chiropodists, large as it is in Chiropody perhaps insignificant with regard to the NHS. a user now but a controller in the future where power automatically begets power me thinks!

Regards,

Colin.

 

Slamming the door after the Horse has bolted!

Hi All,

Ian states, "That as a grandparented individual, the process of Grandparenting was never put across to me(not many others I'm sure) in that way." [Post No.12. above]. This relates to me and to your present push in Scotland Mark! That is why from the outset of reading your Posts on this Forum you and I Mark could never be more than strange bedfellows.

I have shown hostility to your attempt to move the goal posts at what I saw to be new ideas and at your behest at the beginning of my posting here! Yet another conspiracy behind some closed doors somewhere and Scotland the new battlefield!!! You stood no chance with me Mark because all I can see is more erections of new hedges after the 'RACE IS OVER'.

The HPC. obviously made it possible for me to be grandparented according to the Statutory Instruments and Rules! Yes Mark I have a certain sympathy and respect for your position but it is to late. It's likened to a referee looking at a video of a disallowed goal after the final whistle and awarding it to the other side so they lost the match!

I have a certain respect for how you conduct yourself Mark but as Ian says, "I could never trust a system that, at any stage, failed to start from as level a playing field as possible."

Burning Hostility seen as Malice! Admin. has had to hold me back on the odd occasion! Malice etc. is not required in this well run and controlled Forum. But a BURNING HOSTILITY to what you are attempting to do in Scotland at this moment is! It is also like,

SLAMMING THE DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAS BOLTED.

Regards to you Ian for helping to create a level playing field here at least.

Regards to you Mark, despite are unresolvable differences.

What do you All think?

Colin.

And not a PS. in sight, well nearly!

 

Mark,

Sorry I didn’t reply to your comments earlier, I have been busy this week. Firstly, let me thank you for the time and effort you put into your reply. You are obviously a knowledgeable man and I respect your opinion of the current situation even if I may not agree with some of your suggestions for the future control of OUR profession.

Looking at some of the replies and conversations initiated by my first posting, it would seem that most people on here accept that there is a need for further education throughout our professional lives. Let me make myself totally clear on this point, I support CPD’s as well and it’s a good way to meet colleagues.

Membership to a professional organisation is another matter. If you have a degree, that is what you have – and yes, you should be proud to let others know you have it. In the same way as a person with a diploma should. But membership is membership and a practitioner with the minimum of qualifications can be seen as such, by those with a real concern for the amount letters after a name. So what is the problem? A desire to be further regulated, and to be allowed to stand in the same ranks as your professional colleagues….and continue to learn?
Those with advanced qualifications will be sought after by some members of the public and will no doubt get the remuneration they deserve.

I made remarks about the money the HPC has collected up to the close of the register for Grand parenting, and I totally agree with what has been done. There was no right way. My concern now is the control of manufactured job titles, like the ones that are mushrooming around us now.They do pose a genuine threat to the future development of our newly protected titles of chiropody/podiatry.

I would like to think that those who sit on committees representing us, will have the sense to distance themselves from the 'little earner associations' that have given a one fingered salute to recent legislation. These organisations do need neutralising as a matter of urgency. One of two titles (or both) is enough.

My dear colleague, if you stay with the fighters who periodically wheel out the huge old chestnut and the marching band – playing the same old tune, you will alienate yourself from the majority of practitioners. Most of the ‘Independent’ sector, to use your terminology, is composed of responsible people who have a desire to learn. Many of them have held managerial positions or have been professionals in other fields in their past lives. Actually Mark, I fall into that category as I now enter my 25th year in the business.

The HPC has given us some form of start, and any organisation that is not a legislator can now go to hell if it considers my money or my presence for that matter to be inferior to the rest. If and when the society changes its attitude, then I will reconsider my application, but after my experience with the untruth I was being sold the other day and the magic changing website, I am not sure if I really want to be a part of it.

In closing, I felt that it was necessary to expose what had happened. I also exercised my right to be who I wanted to be for that purpose. So I now admit that I am not Markus Mellisham at all. I am well known in the midlands and I have friends in all camps.

Mark, please for the sake of us all and for the good of OUR profession, put the old chestnut (and the marching band) in the clinical waste bin for collection ASAP. Will you sign the consent form to swallow the bitter pill I spoke of? Education, not alienation is the way forward.

 

Robin, Colin, ‘Markus’, et al

One of the abiding features of this profession is the strange weave of myths, half-truths and damn lies that surround every quarter. Perhaps, as Felicity has observed before on another stream, it is simply because podiatry is going through its adolescence and these are no more than growing pains. Each country has its own unique set of problems. In Britain, most of ours has to do with the way the profession was established and the subsequent environment where its practitioners plied their trade.

Where there are a number of training schools without a common bond there is bound to be suspicion and mistrust between its graduates; nothing strange in that, it is merely a reflection of one of the less endearing sides of human nature. Over the years stories have developed on all sides of the professional spectrum to the point where they have developed more heads and limbs that the mystical Hydra. When we subscribe to such nonsense, we do ourselves and others a great disservice for more often than not, the truth is altogether different that what we have been led to believe.

I suspect we are all guilty of allowing ourselves to be misled and influenced by these fantasies – I know I have over the years. But it only with the passage of time and a willingness to reach out to others, that we can see the error of our ways, and at that point we can do two things. We can retreat to the relative safety of our illusions and maintain and develop the myths for future generations, or we can be altruistic and reflect and change our attitudes and ways. If we choose the latter, we just might be able to create and altogether more productive and pleasant professional landscape – not just for ourselves, but for those aspiring clinicians in the years to come. If, however, we chose the former, and maintain our trenchant views, we go nowhere – individually and collectively. I know which route I prefer.

The aim of the petition to the Scottish Parliament is not to alienate the grand-parented practitioner – although I accept that on the surface, that is how it might appear to those of you who have taken this momentous step. It is to highlight the failings of a quango who has little interest in developing podiatry into a vibrant mainstream profession in the healthcare arena. The primary objective is to secure a dedicated registrar – a General Podiatry Council if you like – whose focus would be to establish podiatry and all its supporting institutions for the benefit of everyone associated with the profession. Podiatry is characterised and hindered by a number of artificial barriers – between the State and Private sector; between the registered and unregistered practitioner; between the universities and independent schools. Whilst these barriers exist – and they do still – our progress to unification and development is greatly hindered.

As Dave Holland has mentioned before, I wrote a paper some years ago which proposed ways to abolish the barriers between the State and Private marketplace, giving practitioners the freedom to access both markets. Such a model of practice would have many benefits for the profession and public alike. At the time, many in the NHS thought it unworkable (and unthinkable), but now, with the choice agenda – supported by all mainstream political parties – this model is just around the corner. Although it may be difficult to accept, what I am trying to do with the legislative program, is to abolish the barriers between the training schools and their graduates, thereby creating the ‘level playing field’ all of us so desire. On face value it may not appear that way to you as I am highlighting the deficiencies of a process that many of you enjoyed. And you are correct – it is impossible to undo that process – but we must ensure that the route to practice – at differing levels within the profession - is conducted in a way that contributes to the profession’s long-term development and well-being. My own view is that the HPC is not the conduit we need, and personally, I can’t see it changing to meet out needs. Such a view is supported by many colleagues who have worked hard over the years to make the HPC work. Its master is not the profession, remember - and its agenda is not our own.

As far as the Society is concerned I would suggest that many of your fears and concerns are unfounded. I can hear some of you saying – “he would say that wouldn’t he” – especially now that I’ve taken a seat on Council. For the last decade I have been a staunch critic of the professional body, highlighting its failings at every opportunity – failings that disillusioned and frustrated many practitioners over the year. Often these were justified. Before I attended my first Council meeting last week my views were consistent with the foregoing.

I too was greatly disillusioned with the Society and resigned in 1994 for I felt the organisation was isolated and impervious to the real needs of the ordinary member. I rejoined again last year as I was angry at what I saw was lack of direction and failure to address all the various issues that have adversely affected our working environment. My intention was to do something about it. I couldn’t change things from the outside so I felt that I had to ‘put my money where my mouth is’ and get onboard and influence from within. I had grave reservations from the outset – not least as there was a perception that Council operated to a hidden agenda and I would have a real fight on my hands to effect the necessary changes that are required to drive the profession forward.

In all humility, I have to say that all of these fears have proved to be unfounded – if what I experienced last week was anything to go by. Of course Councillors argued from respective positions (managers, surgeons, general practitioners, educationalists); that is only what one would expect. But there is a tacit acknowledgement from everyone that there is a desire to effect the greater good – for everyone associated in the professional landscape – including the grand-parented. I found my views and comments accepted and considered by everyone present and I was able to influence by reasoned argument, and given the diverse structure of our profession, I could ask for no more. What became obvious during these two days was that Council had the best interests of everyone to the fore and its thoughts were inclusive of all sectors and organisations– the Institute, BChA and others, and that being the case I am cautiously optimistic of what we might achieve during the coming years.

What we must ensure is that Council, the Society and other professional bodies, do not operate in isolation. Communication is vital to allay the fears and concerns of practitioners in the difficult times ahead. But communication is a two-way street and each and every one of us shoulders a responsibility to make sure that whatever direction we go down, we do so collectively and in agreement and in unity. That is the greatest challenge we face. Last Friday marked a milestone for the profession in that we have, at last, indicative closure with the end of grand-parenting. This week it was announced that government will set up a Health Select Committee Enquiry into podiatry – another first for the profession – and with that, we have a tremendous opportunity to put our case to parliament for the establishment of podiatry as a mainstream profession in the healthcare arena. Now is the time to bury the hatchets – as Cameron has suggested -and work together to realise the undoubted potential this profession has to offer – not just for our patients, but for future generations of podiatrists to come. It may surprise you to hear this from a confirmed cynic and sceptic, but from the limited experience I have had of Council to date; I think we’re in good shape to deliver.

I trust the foregoing goes a little way to allaying some of the concerns you have.

Kind regards

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

Phew that was a long one. Cannot argue with that? Terrible isn't it!!!

Regards,

Colin.

 

Cheers Colin. Let's mark this weekend as a watershed of sorts and see if we can start building together a collective church that everyone can feel part of. You never know, we might just be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

All the best

Mark

 

Hi Mark

Blimey just picked up on this thread , have you taken an overdose of our pills ????

Please let it be true we MUST unite as a profession and move forward perhaps this is the opportunity.

Cheers

Derek

 

Thanks Guys.

I just wanted to throw that one in because I really did feel annoyed at the time. I feel more reassured that things are gradually moving in the right direction. Here's to a good future for us all.

My best wishes to you all.

'Markus'

 

Hi Markus

I'll second that !!

Cheers

Derek

 

Delighted to read these last few comments and hope we can continue in the same vein. Regarding the forthcoming Select Committee Enquiry, my feeling is that we would be in a much stronger position if we spoke with a collective voice as it would send a message to Government that the profession was focussed about where it is and where it wants to go.

In practical terms it would be difficult to achieve corporate unity with all the representative bodies - although this surely has to be worth considering in the longer term. A British Podiatric Medical Association, incorporating the Society, British Chiropody Association, the Institute and others would appear to me to be a logical step at some point in the future, but it won't happen in the next two or three months. But we could take the first steps towards such a body if we had a memorandum of understanding between the respective parties, regarding the evidence we submit to the Enquiry. This move would require a leap of faith from many people across the professional spectrum, but it might just create a momentum that is irresistible for everyone concerned.

What does the forum think of the foregoing? What suggestions do you have for securing a dynamic unified platform for podiatry? Or do you feel the status quo is the best long term solution for our problems?

I have to add that these are my own thoughts and do not necessarily represent the views or considerations of the Council of the Society........(can we just take that as read from now on unless otherwise stated?)

Kind Regards

Mark

 

Peace or war? Cold Water Perhaps?

Hi All,

Mark expresses what we all should hope for!

Yes, 'BUT', I still feel we are crossing bridges we haven't yet got to? Given time, perhaps we might see some of the above come to fruition!

Enthusiasm without a head long rush into the mire. A lot depends upon the silent majority waking up and stirring themselves into joining the minority here!

But first Mark has to get over the mountain set for him in September! Hopefully without falling into the odd pit or crevasse on the way? (The case of the flying hatchet, perhaps!).

If we had been talking together five/ten years ago I would have been more enthusiastic! The problem I see us having is that there should be perhaps fifteen to twenty thousand UNITED Chiropodists in existence now,(It's not to much to have asked for to serve 60,000,000 is it?!). Not ten thousand still going their own ways, even now!

But if we continue Jaw, Jaw, rather than War, War! We might just limit the damage that has been done in the conspiratorial atmosphere that I came into just over ten years back from here!

The BPS., (British Psychological Society.), Have 40,000 plus with a Royal Charter and everything we should desire in Podiatry. It will be very interesting to see how things turn out with them. I doubt whether their outcome will have much direct effect on us, however, again it is the cart before the horse syndrome I fear!

FHP.'s and Assistants in the NHS. in large numbers are the real threat to any great increase in our sphere of influence I fear? The way the registration was set up we left thousands??? out of the frame! Spilt milk now not that all the registered might look at it like that? But now we have them, (The FHP's.), staring across the high street, Perhaps? How, are we going to react to this new challenge which is about to appear on the Chiropodist scene! Hopefully not a repeat of the 1960's all over again?

Pouring cold water perhaps, but which is reality? The expressions of hope coming from above or my down to earth approach here? Or is it going to be a bit of both!!!

Regards,

Colin.

PS. Still intending to get in touch Mark but things still difficult/busy here at present! I should be in bed!

 

Hi Mark and All

That is the only way it will happen in reality.

When the professional bodies can sit down with each other and talk HONESTLY to sort out their differences and then MOVE FORWARD collectively and in unity then and only then will you see a united profession.

Colin is quite right about our depleted numbers what we have to ask ourselves now is:-

Was it worth frightening off so many who would have grandparented onto the register ??

Or would it have been better to accept and educate for the long term benefit ??

It is all water under the bridge now but we must learn from our past and unite as equals to secure our future.

Just my opinion

Cheers

Derek

 

Hi Mark,

It is good to see the new SOCAP council members are positively thinking to enhance our profession. We need all the professional bodies around one table, let’s move on and leave the past behind.

Somuz Miah

 

Dear all
I too am a HPC partner,have served on Council for the SCP, work in the NHS and privately. I would ask all;
do not ask what the Society can do for them but in the true spirit of the original phrase, ask what you can do for the Society.
Never underestimate all the PR, talent, previous knowledge, expertise that is contained within the SCP and how, when it does well and contributes and drives communications etc, we all benefit.

The inclusion of the newly registered/privately trained is going to prove an enormous asset of talented, driven, business minded people, talents to be mined and utilised for all. We need all our profession enabled to deliver high quality foothealth professional care (note wording!)
If we continue to be multi grouped we remain weak. So I urge all to reconsider and join the SCP. Not because of previous arguments but because we as a profession need all of "us."
The battles can still be fought with passion but please bring them inside off the street!
Regards
Emma Supple