Is this relevant for the HPC?

Hi All

Certainly not the practitioner IMHO !!

I have yet to see ANY benefit from this overbearing self opinionated body who would appear to have assumed the mantle of judge jury and executioner to all who are dragged before it.:butcher:

I understand we have to have some form of disciplinary body in existence "to protect the public" from bad practice BUT the cited case is a legal one between the company and the individual that should be sorted in a court of LAW .

If the Podiatrist is found guilty by a judge and jury of "obtaining goods and services by deception" or whatever THEN AND ONLY THEN should the HPC get involved

It would seem to me they are involving themselves in many things that are simply well outside their remit AND AT OUR EXPENSE

.

Robin, I have had this conversation with you before and it seems nothing much has changed , you may see the logic , but you would still appear to be in the minority as I do not believe you would find support within the profession for many of the judgments made or the inappropriate nature of the offence to be heard by the HPC.

I along with Mark await your definition of this high standards measure, with anticipation


Cheers
Derek

 

Sorry to go a little off theme here.

Syd I am astonished that you found the reaction that you describe in NZ. I was only there for a week (which obviously makes a difference) but I found the NZs really nice down to earth people. The Aussies have a superb abrasive sense of humour which appeals to me greatly (they really can't play cricket you know). However, I will bow to your greater experience and promise never to call your good countrymen Sawneys or Ladies From Hell again.

Feel free to describe me as a vile Sassenach or Pommie Bastard (depending on origin)!

Bill

PS - I suppose that you might have said something really offensive, like comparing them to the current and previous British prime ministers - or wives.

 

Can you imagine working for an organization that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following statistics?

29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
4 have been arrested on drug related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defending lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year.

Which organization is this?

It’s the 635 members of the House of Commons.

abbreviated from Common Sense: An Obituary

A Reader 1/5/2008 The Truth Seeker

Use your democratic right and lobby your MP to introduce fairness and common sense to the HPC

Or, How did you spell podo-whatsits??

Chris

 

Hi Chris

Yes seen that one before

Never thought of reproducing in this format

Well done

Holier than thou all round then:bang:

Perhaps this is the High Standards we as Podiatrists are to follow ??

Robin, pray tell ??

:deadhorse:



Sooner we get rid of this government and the corrupt nanny (communist) state we live in now and start bringing back common sense and decency into our lifestyle (including the HPC) The better

Lets get back to the old values that made this country great = fairness, loyalty and a willingness to help each other etc :drinks

Cheers
Derek

 

Hi All

Perhaps you would like to register your protests here as well ??

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/noHPCfees/


Then perhaps the HPC will understand how unhappy those they purport to regulate are with the service they provide to them.

Cheers

Derek

 

Sign Protest: DONE

 

But will that not fall on deaf ear's? The HPC are not in the business of providing a service to those that they regulate. What is the point in complaining about a service that is not provided? Any buisness or organisation is silly if they do not listen to those who they provide a service to....its just the HPC do not provide a service to those that are registered.

Don't get me wrong, I think (based on the nature of some of the complaints the HPC go after), that they are out of control....its just that complaints coming from those who they regulate will not carry much weight.

 

Hi Craig

Not forgetting those they regulate PAY for the service they provide.

If you Pay for something whatever it is you expect right and proper service.

That is the point they ARE out of control as far as we are concerned so what do we do ?? Just sit back and let it happen or... Protest about it

And got the same response as to date in this instance NONE

This person who sits on the HPC panel and thinks the sun shines out of the organizations backside supports the HPC with comment but whenever challenged disappears into the woodwork without constructive reply and I'm sure is in very good company with his colleagues.

He I know lurks on this and other sites and no doubt reports back the comment and goings on and his reports are no doubt logged for future reference if required ( MR would seem to have been a candidate for a bit of Revenge in the past perhaps ??).

Craig it has got to stop somewhere , we are told what to say, what to do, what to think, how to act are watched , listened to at every turn and then governed / regulated by a faceless bureaucratic quango that would appear to have gone power crazy with the wholly inappropriate cases it hears which are irrelevant overbearing intrusive and inappropriate in many instances:craig:

Sorry, but I have been around a long time and have worked without the need or governance of the HPC and have never done harm to anyone run a successful practice that my patients are happy with.

I resent this additional pressure on my life by the HPC binding me to ridiculous unworkable and unreasonable regulation

Such as

Without definition and imposed/ judged by people /panels of perhaps a somewhat limited experience of the real world ??

Sorry Cant have that one

Deiter

Would apprear Deiter agrees with me at least, well done

Cheers
Derek

 

Hello
I think that protests about charges/fees/taxes will bounce off thick skin.
The HPC remit is to protect the public. There is no argument with this.
Our concerns ( IMHO) are that the HPC is expanding it’s remit into common law.
A civil dispute employer/employee should be decided within the existing framework of the employment law.
A contractual dispute is again a matter for civil law. Well established in the UK and subject to precedent. These are not matters for ‘fitness to practice hearings’
Personally I would also argue that an infringement of the criminal law is not automatically a subject for a ‘fitness to practice hearing’ Eg: littering, I confess that I have urinated on a Brown car, in a public place, to cool an overheated and useless management system.
This drastic action was only carried out after an extensive review. A full health and safety assessment was carried out. The environmental report available at www.takingapiss.com details the benefits of an acidic environment for roadside plants.
BUT,
Again IMHO ‘serious professional misconduct’ means, misconduct WITHIN the profession that one practices. I do not think I need to describe this in detail.
I think that an old fashioned letter writing campaign to your local MP would have the most impact.
Along the lines of;

Dear............ MP,

I am a registered podiatrist with the HPC No........I fully support the HPC in their task to protect the public health.
I am concerned that that outside interests are manipulating the HPC to circumvent the civil and criminal law of the UK....da..di ad di dai

You get the idea.
There are others more literate than me, (sic) Who can draft the letter.
It is important that we stick to the point. The HPC remit is protect the public. Not raise us to the sainthood
Have a nice day!
Chris

 

Bill

>Syd I am astonished that you found the reaction that you describe in NZ. I was only there for a week (which obviously makes a difference) but I found the NZs really nice down to earth people.

Long story and a long time ago. (and off the current theme)

We enjoyed living in NZ and as I said have many close friends from the Land of the Silver Cloud so my comments did not relate to New Zealanders perse and apologies if that is implied. I was a change manager and had to lead a major project which the team found challenging. Whilst the outcome was very successful there were some sensitive issues along the way. As history would show the team effort paid off and the project was a great success. At one point however a brick was thrown through my office window (aimed at my desk aka me and according to the police would have caused severe injury if not death had it hit the target) fortunately I was not around at the time but kept the brick as an office paper weight (and reminder). When the matter was reported my superiors all had the same reaction. “It has not started, again!” “What?” said I, innocently, and apparently there had been a long and pernicious history of harassment of overseas staff at that particular Institute. As a result of that experience my sympathies (as per original posting) always lie with those who are maliciously maligned on hearsay, alone. At the same time I understand the problems implicit with a governing body left to deal with the matter, fairly.

>Feel free to describe me as a vile Sassenach or Pommie Bastard (depending on origin)!

I am a child (well you know what I mean ) of the universe and know no boundries. - a jock living in exile

>PS - I suppose that you might have said something really offensive, like comparing them to the current and previous British prime ministers - or wives.

It was that sort of thing that I was well warned not to do. I have dry wit like Chic Murray (only not as good) and slick wordsmithery, apparently offends.

toeslayer

 

Reading some of the postings above is disconcerting. Is there anyone who is is content with being registered by such a body? It appears that they take registrants' money and in return give them paranoia. Paranoia does not make anyone fit for practice! If we are not happy with the service they provide to the public and the professions then the only moral course of action is mass resignation.

 

EXCELLENT idea: But, just how much weight does my 164lb add to the mass ?

I am inclined to agree that a protest will not amount to much. But hey, at least the worm can bare its' teeth, a little ?

Never in a millennia did I anticipate those draconian actions & measures as delivered by the HPC. Unbelievable. The HPC over-regulates, period. A witch hunt if ever there was one.

Akin to lazy policing strategy to synthetically boost improved crime figure audits e.g. chasing the 'speeding' motorist for a 3mph excess. Truly it is a modern disease.

 

Hi DTT!

A quick answer... (and respectfully I'm not going to argue because I think we won't reach an agreement)

I have been very busy of late doing feet, hence the no reply.
I WILL reply as fully as I can over the weekend OK?

I do not report anything to anyone.
I only get involved with the HPC (as does any other partner) when they write/ring or email me.

And anyway I HAVE told you I am a partner and not made a secret of it. I have been open about it. My main motive for applying to be a partner was because I realised that the fitness to practise process affects us all and instead of speculating about it and seeing conspiracies where there are none I have greater insight into the workings of the process as I am engaged in it.

I am NOT on a power trip. I don't think anyone is. I where possible try to see things from the registants point of view. The people who MAKE the complaints are the ones to be wary of, not the partners.

The HPC whether we like it or not is legally obliged to investigate all complaints and YES some are frivolous/maliciuos. That is why they get looked at in 2 stages before going to a hearing.

Another problem is perception. YOU do not get to read the legal bundles so you don't see the full picture...

I've got to go to work now...

Bye!

 

Hi Robin

Thank you for coming back.

And by that admission you set yourself up for questioning on an open forum ( not argument BTW discussion and debate please Argument suggests a personal element and there is non from my side anyway)

Yep I know the feeling of busy very well and we will await your reply as soon as you can find the time .

The point that is being made is The HPC is moving INTO the legal system and hearing cases that should be heard in a court of LAW .

The HPC should sit on the outcome of that trial not involve itself before.

Robin we all understand there must be some form of body to protect the public fair enough BUT the rest that goes with it??

Chris made a comment

Very much to my point

But as you say

Perhaps not but with the HPC I still see the bureaucratic nanny state in full swing in many cases being totally devoid of common sense causing unwarranted and unreasonable demands on practitioners personal and private lives.

As an example

I would say an impossible request for us lesser mortals ??

I understand the Audit letters are in the post ( along with HPC registration fees) ?

Many practitioners will have to take time out from their already busy lives to fill out a "pointless" paper exercise IMO but perhaps that one will wait for another time ....

cheers
Derek

 

Have the HPC members considered resigning on mass themselves?
If not why not?
As quoted again in the previous post by Derek, how can any sane balanced individual expect anyone, including themselves, to:-
"Keep high standards of personal and professional conduct at all times".
I think they have entered into the realms of hypocrisy, supported and perpetuated by a bureaucratic nightmare!
I have another three questions for 'the HPC panel':- If a complaint is bought against a registrant I understand that the HPC can take it upon themselves to refuse their resignation if they are, "under proceedings". How can this refusal be compliant with Human Rights legislation? Secondly, do the HPC panel get paid and if so how much? Thirdly, if they do not get paid why on earth do they subscribe to such hypocrisy free of charge? Either way, they do not appear to have given value for the money paid out by the poor paranoid registrants and I can detect precious little charity.

With concern
perrypod.

 

Hi DTT (and everyone else that asked about

:

Before I answer the points raised I'd like to say thet the following is only my opinion.

My understanding is that the concept come from this:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7013/7013.pdf

Which is entitled "Trust, Assurance and Safety –The Regulation of Health Professionals
in the 21st Century"

"3.1 Health professionals in the United Kingdom work to, and meet, standards of
conduct and clinical quality that put them in the front rank of professionalism
internationally. In millions of interactions with patients every day – from a few
simple words of advice to the most complex and technologically sophisticated
procedures – they engage with patients with kindness, commitment,
compassion and a clear focus on clinical excellence.
3.2 Such is the standard of care that patients receive routinely from health
professionals, rare lapses from professionals are all the more stark and
disturbing when they do occur. When concerns are raised about the behaviour
or ability of health professionals, there are heightened levels of patient, public,
professional and media scrutiny of the way in which the professions and their
regulators respond. As a society, we are so used to having our high
expectations of health professionals met that we take it all the more seriously
when they are not. As the ability of modern healthcare to diagnose, treat and
manage illness continues to accelerate, and as new investment in the NHS is
rapidly expanding the capacity for health professionals to adopt these new
interventions, public expectations of health professionals continue to rise."

Therefore I think that from this the government expect a higher standard of conduct from health professionals that lets say that of someone without such a profession.

I know that might make you cross, but I'm just the messenger.

As you are aware there is a profession specific standards of conduct performance and ethics and a generic one (which affects all registrants).

Contracturally I cannot speak much about specific cases. If I could it would make explaining a lot easier. However the rationale for some of the decisions is clearer if one reads the entire transcript of a case instead of just the judgement, which of itself can elicit a knee jerk reaction along the lines of anti HPC outrage. Like I said earlier if you could read the entire bundle of a case ie the whole allegation and supporting documents, you would then KNOW why a decision was made. Unfortunately the public can't do this. They can however request the full transript of a hearing from the HPC if they want it (AND have a lot of time to read it).

In my experience the generic standards are often referred to when the allegation is about someone's personal or professional conduct, not just their clinical skills.

So supposing someone ran off with a patient's mooney, would not contact the HPC to refute the allegations and could not be traced by the Police because they'd left the country. The person has not gone to court (hence no certificate of conviction) thus the HPC could apply the above rule. This may not come out in a judgement, but may be what actually happened. So it may seem that the HPC were dealing with legal matters (and in a way they are) but what other recourse would a patient have to stop them doing it again as a Pod, ODP or whatever?

PerryPod:

I get paid £140 a day plus expenses i.e food, train, hotel.
The HPC WILL refuse resignation if under 'proceedings'. This is becuse of the way the Health Professions Order was written. You can't get out of the process until it is completed. Therefore if you don't want to be bound by it don't re-register. In all things read the small print.

Specifically what part of Human Rights legistaltion does is this not compliant with?

I think the HPC does give good value. We partners work very hard for the regstrants. I often read a bundle 3-4 times prior to a hearing (which sometimes can be 100s of pages). THEN if I'm not sure I look things up and sometimes ask certain academics the answers to technical questions if I'm in doubt (and YES that is allowed so long as I don't say its about registrant X). My daily rate at work is £300+ a day. Thus £140 IS charitable. I don't do it for the money. I don't think any of the other registrant panel membersdo either...

DTT I don't want to seem if I go on and on. So I'll finish here. However if I've missed anything I'm happy to get back to you in as far as I can. And yes I'll answer any additional questions if you like (if I can).

I hope this helps. Hopefully it has, but I suspect it may prompt more questions

Cheers,

Robin.

 

Oh DTT I forgot to say:

Yes the HPC process can be abused, and we do try to throw out such complaints if we can.

The following is another excerpt from my dissertation:

Is the Health Professions Council Fitness to Practise Process Harsh?

Graham (2007a, pp.18-19) stated the fact that every disciplinary action or complaint made against Podiatrists as registrants could lead to the Health Professions Council. This is a sobering thought and is a major influence on all Chiropodists and Podiatrists (Morris 2007, pp.22-26). JM Consulting (1998, p.4) explained that under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act (1960), archaic and inflexible disciplinary procedures meant that only misconduct which was “infamous” was addressed. This meant that the number of reported misdemeanours of “state-registered Chiropodists” was relatively few (Graham 2007a, pp.18-19). There were no procedures for health, continuing competence or Continual Professional Development. This meant that ill, out-of-date or incompetent practitioners could continue in practice without any pressure on them to improve or address the quality of their services (Sabine 2007a, pp.30-31).

Whereas now the regulatory system has changed and all registrants, whether formerly “state registered” or grandparented are subject to the profession-specific “Standards of proficiency Chiropodists & podiatrists” (Health Professions Council 2003a) and the generic “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” (Health Professions Council 2003b). If a registrant has failed in their duty of care or breached the Health Professions Council’s “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics” (Health Professions Council 2003b) or the Health Professions Council’s “Standards of Proficiency for Chiropodists & podiatrists” (Health Professions Council 2003a) they are liable for a complaint to be made against them (Johnson 2007, pp.17).

Graham (2003, pp.10-11) suggested that the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists should be an enforcer of the Health Professions Council’s statutory regulations. He suggested that at the time of writing his article in 2003 there were potentially 9000 police i.e. “state registered chiropodists” to police the regulations, and that the grandparented would also join those numbers. Indeed, Johnson (2007, pp.17) said that registrants and members of the public act as their eyes and ears. This type of thinking has caused some professionals to report the misdemeanours of one-another to the Health Professions Council. This is evidenced by The Health Professions Council’s generic “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”, which directs “You must protect patients if you believe that they are threatened by a colleague’s conduct, performance or health” (Health Professions Council 2003b). Thus it is a requirement to report the failings of one-another if it is felt that patients may be threatened by colleagues actions. Although Graham (2003, pp.10-11) rightly pointed out that the Health Professions Council’s prime directive is to protect the public, the complaints process can be abused.

This is because anyone can complain to the Health Professions Council as long as that complaint is made in writing, and some anonymous complaints are investigated depending on their seriousness (Sabine 2007a, pp.30-31). The council is then duty bound to investigate such allegations (Morris 2007, pp.22-26). Batt (2007, pp.5) and Morris (2007, pp.22-26) cited the example of where a husband and wife in joint practice could report one another as retribution in an acrimonious marital dispute. Another problem is that there is no deterrent against malicious complaints. This is because there is no procedure for costs to be awarded against vexatious litigants (Brett 2007, pp.34-37; Morris 2007, pp.22-26). Thus if a registrant is not liked for whatever reason it is possible that someone can report them with impunity. Even though the costs to the registrant if the case proceeded to a fitness to practise hearing can exceed £3000 a day (Brett 2007, pp.34-37). Added to this registrants can frequently wait over a year for their hearing to be heard, which adds greatly to the stress experienced by them and their families (Batt 2007, pp.5). Furthermore, whatever the outcome of a case unless it is a striking off, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, who is the regulator of healthcare regulators, will review the case to ensure that the sanctions were harsh enough. If they decide that a sanction is not harsh enough they can demand a retrial (Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence 2007a).

When a complaint is made it is sent to the screeners to assess its validity. Next it is sent to the Investigating Committee to assess if the complaint was serious or if it could be thrown out. If complaints are viewed as serious they are referred to a Conduct and Competence Committee panel hearing, or a Health Panel hearing (if it was felt that the complaint arose due to the registrant’s practise being affected by his or her health) (Sabine 2007a, pp.30-31; Sabine 2007b, pp.2). The outcome of hearings are judged as civil cases on balance of probabilities, i.e. if the panel believes the registrant 51% versus the accuser’s 49% then the registrant will have no case to answer (Department of Health 2007b, p.59-60; Health Professions Council 2006b). This in contrast with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) whose standard of proof required to find that there is a case to answer against a registrant is the criminal standard, which is where an accusation is judged “beyond reasonable doubt” and so is a more exacting yardstick. This means that under civil rules if there is still some doubt in the minds of the Conduct and Competence panel they can still find that there is a case to answer against the registrant as long as they can state valid reasons for doing so (Health Professions Council 2003d, p.1-2). Interestingly the NMC have made a commitment to change its burden of proof to the civil standard, the same as is employed by the Health Professions Council. (Department of Health 2007, p.59-60). Conduct and Competence and Health panel hearings are normally held in public. The dates can be viewed, and the transcripts of cases well founded can be read on the Health Professions Council’s website (Sabine 2007c, pp.14-15). Wide media coverage is given to cases which are well founded. In the 2005-2006 year some cases were reported in The London Evening Standard, The Sun, The Sunday Mail (Scotland), BBC News Online, Teletext News and the Lincolnshire Echo, along with various regional newspapers (Health Professions Council 2006b).

Hearings are serious for all Health Professions Council registrants because the ultimate sanction for breach of standards is a Striking Off Order, which lasts for at least 5 years, after which the registrant may re-apply for registration, which is not automatic (Health Professions Order 2001). This can mean loss of livelihood to the registrant. However, in the United Kingdom all public bodies (of which the Health Professions Council is one) are bound by the principles of the Human Rights Act (1998). This guarantees various rights and freedoms, such as “the right to a fair trial”. This does occur because the accused registrant does have a fair and public hearing and they have the opportunity to appeal to the Privy Council if they disagree with the decisions of the panel (Health Professions Order 2001). Interestingly The Human Rights Act (1998) under the First Protocol, Article 1 – Protection of property stated “no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”. The relevance is that if a registrant is struck off they loose their “property”, their profession, hence they may have recourse to appeal under The Human Rights Act (1998) (Health Professions Council 2003c, p.4). It is important fact to remember that the conduct and competence panel is not engaging in a punitive process, their remit is to protect the public from harm (Graham 2003, pp.10-11). However if a registrant looses his professional title i.e. Chiropodist and Podiatrist, and possibly his livelihood they personally may view it as punitive.

Cheers,

Robin.

 

Robin

Firstly , Thank you for your detailed reply which I and I am sure many appreciate to help understand the mindset and workings of the FTP hearings.

I will read your post, digest and reply fully over the weekend ( Wifes birthday today so time is short)

My best wishes

Cheers
Derek

 

I guess this is were I have a fundamental different understanding of the role of the HPC. I see them as a regulatory authority and others see them as some sort of membership organisation that you can resign from and as some sort of agency that should be providing services to those you are registered. I do not see them as either of these.

How can one "resign" from the HPC? All you can do is refuse to pay your annual fee which is a statutory requirement ....which has legal consequences depending on what you do with the nature of your clinical practice.

 

Craig

I think you have summarised the situation well- the HPC calls the tunes , we just have to tow the line and pay the required annual fee if we want to continue to practise in the regulated profession of podiatry.

The alternative is not just to "resign" but to opt out and become a FHP which goes against the grain for most of us having fought for protection of title ( closure would have been good too but we missed the boat!)

regards
cornmerchant

 

Robin,
The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 3 reads :-
Prohibition Of Torture.
'No one should be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.
Reading postings, I am not absolutely convinced that the HPC is being or even intending to be fully compliant. I trust that you are able to not only read and understand legislation given in your bundles, but also balance the effects of it's application on society at large. As you probably know, legislation can not only be read narrowly but also broadly. Taking the politicians 300 pieces of silver is an onerous task, Judas hanged himself after just 30 pieces. I trust that you have not chosen to sip from the poisoned chalice. Good legislation seldom needs ambiguities, longevity or small print and it's intentions are seldom questioned.

 

There are three options open to the profession if it is dissatisfied with the performance or operational direction of the HPC.

First, members can attempt to influence the organisation from within - the current approach which Robin illustrates eloquently in his recent posts. This has been the view from the profession to date with the likes of Sabine, Graham et al participating either as partners or elected members of council alongside members of other professions. The success or otherwise of this approach is debatable, but clearly, like so many other issues within the profession, views will differ on whether participating involvement is best for the profession in the long term. Indeed it could be argued that individual participation in both the regulatory process and professional representation - i.e. dual roles with the HPC and membership organisations such as SoCaP and the BChA - should be functionally delineated to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

Second, registrants could simply deregister by not paying their fees and call themselves by another title – podologist or FHP or anything else that is in vogue. This route is open to anyone – including those who have been struck off the register – and although it may prohibit employment within the NHS – there is a substantive market in the private sector which could always provide earnings for those who wish to remove themselves from the present regulatory environment.

Third, registrants could deregister by not paying their fees and still call themselves podiatrists or chiropodists – in clear breach of current legislation. In doing so, they would be open to prosecution – however if this course was taken by sufficient numbers – say 10% or 1,000 registrants - it is unlikely the HPC or indeed the government would be minded to prosecute providing the argument and reasoning behind the action had veracity.

Some things to consider: Is it desirable to have a regulatory process for health professions? What should be the function(s) of the regulator? Should the regulatory process be equitable and fair – both on an individual basis and between private and public sectors? Should the law be tightened to prevent circumvention? Could the regulatory process be devolved to others - perhaps the professional bodies and local licensing authorities?

Clearly there is an element of dissatisfaction with the HPC. The question – as ever - is how motivated is the profession to deal with these issues?

 

If that is what it will hinge on, oh dear.

SCP News (may 2008) voting returns : a sterile 23% bothered to return voting papers to elect their representatives.

Is this indicative of the profession's motivation ? Probably ....

 

Hi Robin

Again thank you for your detailed reply.

Many of the points have been covered by others since your post so ...

I think that is the main crux of everybody's gripe with the HPC , Many of the cases that are being taken on are frankly it would appear nothing to do with the registrants clinical competence but more with associated social issues ??

Do we really need the quoted £3:000 expense of a full hearing when perhaps early intervention by a mediator or such like may be more appropriate?

An example would be in the cited case " a gambling problem" was introduced as evidence , the monies owed had been paid back before the hearing ,send the person for HELP with her addiction and save the money from the full hearing ?/

Perhaps I over simplify

But as you state "we don't see the overall picture" so with that in mind have to assume there is more than meets the eye ,no smoke without fire and all that ?

I think it is safe to say that the profession as a whole are dissatisfied with the treatment /conditions the HPC is inflicting upon registrants and the additional pressures it inflicts on private /personal lives by implication.

I know you are the messenger Robin and I have no intention of shooting you, but I do have one question for you

Do All the Partners know the feeling of registrants toward the remit of the HPC or Does it " FALL ON DEAF EARS" as has been stated by some ??

Cheers
Derek

 

Hi DTT!

I don't really know what the other Chiropody partners think. I'm not being elusive, its just that I don't meet them. I met some once at the 1st Partners Conference, but that was it -and it was all very new then. You see when I go to the HPC, there is only ever one of any profession on a panel at one time. I also don't know who all the other partners are. I only know of some. I think however that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know what the feeling amongst Chiropody registants is.

However, as you know I think the HPC is a good thing despite its faults. Yes I'd like regulation akin to Dentistry, but we've got more than we had, which is a level playing field for all who wanted to register at the time of grandparenting. I've just written my £144 cheque and I think its one of the best cheques I've spent all year (please don't be sick). Since HPC reg I've been able to get a degree, do LA, learn more biomechanics and totally change my business.
OK I'd like regulation of all who do feet, not just protection of title and yes I have seen some NHS departments try to use the HPC process as a way to manage HR issues in MANY professions (not just Chiropody), and we do try to be wary of that. However the way it is set up is that ALL complaints are looked at seriously. I suspect (and I have no refs to back it up) that this happens with other regulators too.

PerryPod: I suspect you don't like the HPC, however if you went before it, would like to have a chiropodist on the panel who has some grasp of your job, or would you like it to be all lay people who had no idea how a chiropody procedure should be undertaken? The torture bit did make me grin though. As far as legal understanding we do have independent legal assessors who advise us and who are quick to point relevant issues out.

Mark: Yes motivation IS the issue. Apathy is rife. Anyone could become a partner or a council member. All it took was an application and an interview to be a partner. Few people were on the Council election voting form, but more could have been. I think that next time the council members will be appointed rather than elected. That means (I think and I don't know) that people can apply... Personally I think Pam Sabine and Jackie Sheridon do a good Job, but you never know it COULD be you if you want to... maybe? I don't mean that you are not motivated by the way, but you get my drift...

PS DTT I forgot to say that mediation IS one of options available to us. I've not done it, but it is an option.
This is worth a read. It's the indicative sanctions policy: It explains about mediation and all the rest of the stuff.

http://www.hpc-uk.org/Assets/documents/10000A9CPractice_Note_Sanctions.pdf

 

Hi Robin

So why is there not some official comment etc ??

Surly if the troops obviously ain't happy the common sense thing to do is to listen and take notice ??igs:

Too late:wacko: Robin you really should get out more !! the best cheque all year ?????

I'm glad your happy and agree you are entitled to you opinion.

To jump in on part of your reply to Mark

Well I suppose if you have the time??

Lets me out then

Thanks again for your reply

cheers
Derek

 

Robin,
1 I was happier with the professional registration system and also the registrants in the previous system of state registration.

2 You say you needed the HPC to register you before you obtained a university degree! Why did you not do it the other way around ?

3 Mention of torture makes you grin..... If torture makes you grin are you really fit for practice?
All sounds pretty sadistic to me..... Don't need the law to tell either you or me that.
Please do me a favour and get yourself and the other members of the HPC to simply resign.

 

Hello Robin. I've been away, hence unable to offer more timely replies.

You have had the courage to post a contrary view on an unpopular subject and are therefore due the relevant respect for so doing. I note that in your post of 17th May you state that "we partners work very hard for the registrants". This is a crux issue; you do not. You work for the HPC whom you yourself have stated are there for the safety of the patient, and that is the position in which you sit. The fact that you are paid and derive your expenses from the registrants simply rubs salt into the wounds of those forced to pay their fees.

I tend to agree with Perrypod on the issue of degrees and biomechanics. These are irrelevant to the HPC which is not an educational body and has repeatedly stated that it will not engage in the recognition of post registration qualifications (although it has in the past, and intends, I gather to do so in the future). The only element which you could not have carried out was L.A. and that was true of the CPSM anyway.

I will be grateful if you can supply some information concerning frivolous complaints. When NHS (or other) HR departments make such a complaint, does the HPC report this to the Privvy Council and to the Dept. of Health, giving names, dates etc.? If not, why not?

In a completely different context, I have been in the not always comfortable position of judging my fellow man. In the process of this I, and my colleagues have been subject to lies misdirection and abuse, sometimes supported and encouraged by those who do not have the relevant information. You have not been subjected to lies, misdirection and abuse on these pages but 'if it's too hot in the kitchen................. 'etc.

Finally, concerning the possible appointment of Council members. This has not been deemed appropriate when low turnouts occur in U.K. political elections. Do the HPC know better? In British law silence is deemed consent and we all have the right to abstain. Perhaps you might like to put these points to the learned barristers with whom you sit. I think that they will confirm the points.

In 1776 in the American Colonies a rebellion took place. The watchword was 'No Taxation Without Representation'. Your friends at the HPC would, I think, do well to dwell on that.

Bill Liggins

 

Traditionally under British law an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Why then is a registrant not free to resign if a complaint against them is being investigated by the HPC? This action does not hold the registrant above the legal system as civil and criminal proceedings can still be taken against them in the courts, if it is appropriate to do so. As joining the HPC is voluntary, it should follow that a registrant should also be free to resign at any time he or she wishes. The HPC's insistence to keep a grip on an individual against that person's consent is degrading and a travesty of justice. Remember, a patient can withdraw their consent to treatment at any time they want to do so. Surely it is only fair that a registrant can withdraw their consent to be put on a register if and when they want.

 

Is there any way of getting the HPC to disclose how much it costs to bring a complaint to a formal hearing stage and for the cost of the hearing itself? The following is the latest jaw-droppingly unbelievably trivial nonsense to affect a registrant....

 

Hi Mark

Agreed

How did this EVER come to a full hearing

The cost must be astronomical

All that should have been sorted out by someone with half an ounce of common sense has been expensively dismissed and the registrant sent to be tried by the Panel:bang:

They must have known without actual evidence ( breath blood test at the time) of "inebriation" it would be impossible to prove at a later date ??

I wonder if we have the option to report the rude, ignorant, ill mannered A*** soles that make appointments with us and then DNA without any attempt to cancel ??

One of my pet hates :craig:

So now we cant go on holiday,be ill or cancel patients.

Such a joy this HPC isn't it

Cheers

Derek

 

There is such a thing as freedom to contract. If a practitioner feels for whatever reason that they no longer want to treat a patient at as given time then there is no illegal or professional reason that they should not cancel the appointment. Given the facts of the case I suggest that Mr. Tyson, Counsel for the registrant, should have applied to have the hearing cancelled through a fundamental lack of evidence. This is obviously distressing for the registrant and the facts should not have been published, doing so is hardly in the public interest.

 

oh dear...

I have deep-rooted concern as to where we are headed as a society if we have to resort to the HPC to sort out disputes that are not criminal. A ruling body that seems to deem any kind of behaviour outside of being an automaton as 'unacceptable'. The hearings often cite situations that present as a simple black & white scenario- if you read between the lines you can well imagine several contexts in which the different complaints could have seemed rational at the time, or could have been dealt with in a much less punitive setting- with resolution rather than retribution being the goal.

I have recently qualified and after wading through irrelevant piles of paper, completed the HPC reg form. Confused as to the fee costs i checked the website & came across the hearings section. Almost three hours & half a bottle of cab sav later, (oops should i not write that??!) I really did question what the hell i had chosen to do for a profession if this is what it's public face amounts to- petty squabbles and personality clashes.... not to mention the existence of a government body through which anyone can vent their discrimination of someone's sexuality, race, religion, politics or class.

Having read through the posts here, it seems that the HPC 'fitness to practice' assumption is that by virtue of being 'health professionals' - people will behave with more 'decorum' than those not of a professional body. Does that offend no-one else but me? It is inherent with the kind of snobbery that professionals are of course more trustworthy and naturally more capable of 'appropriate behaviour'- has anyone ever been to a med students party?????!

It is precisely this thinking that enables the Shipmans of the world to meander around life respected and revered to. The knee jerk reaction & creation of the HPC-an organisation governed by over-inflated arrogant opinions of 'appropriateness'- and it's underpinning ideology does very little to dispell the myth.

Many of the cases in the hearings cited are obviously surrounded by an unknown set of complex circumstances- that are not taken into account unless the accused wishes to display all parts of his/her life for public view. One case with a man who 'attacked' his parents- who the hell knows what those circumstances were- but it must have been pretty significant and more than likely had no bearing on the man's fitness to practice. Another, it was quite evident the accused may have been experiencing domestic abuse. Again, no relation to treating patients.

My point is, we are not simply defined and governed by our work, & yet if the HPC had it's way we would sleep in our uniforms (& not in a good way!). We live in a culture of fear and as a result people resort to blame to find the easy way out of difficult situations. Dealing with problems 1-1 as they arise is surely not that hard? good policy and procedure guidelines should cover this, and avoid unnecessary HPC involvement. Our patients DO have a RIGHT to fair & ethical treatment- however I really struggle to see how far the HPC goes to enabling this key principle for practice.

 

Understand that the number of registrants who chose this option is nearly 13% or 1,300 podiatrists. :drinks

 

I wish to thank shellyvortex for the posting and agree with every word written within it. Registrants from other professions than ours have expressed serious misgivings concerning the HPC to me personally. I am most interested to note that Mark has discovered that 1,300 podiatrists have withdrawn from the register. If all of these are intending to carry on practising this is indeed significant progress! Perhaps we should start an action group and draw together all those in favour of ridding ourselves of this hideous parasite.

 

Hi All
Before we get all excited, many of the 1300 registrants who have dropped out will probably be natural wastage- those registrants coming up to retirement will probably account for many of that number. there will have been quite a few grandparented who are just do not feel able to keep up with the CPD etc and have decided to take their chance and work as FHPs - and why not, as they have nothing to lose !

While we are all up in arms at the apparent unfairness of the HPC - it is not a choice- if you want to use the title of Chiropodist or Podiatrist you have to be registered. If yu want to hold an LA certificate you have to be registered. If you want to be able to treat insured patients then you have to be registered.

I would have to think very carefully before giving up those rights. Could I practice as a FHP? I dont think so, purely because I take a pride in my qualification. I really dont want to be grouped with practitioners who did a distance learning course and a few days practical.

Cornmerchant (ask me again in 2 years time!)

 

Hello All,

Following this thread it is clear that the HPC is not fit for purpose. More accurately, it is not functioning in a proper manner.

As a new organisation teething troubles were to be expected but it appears that the encumbents are really not up to the job. They do not understand their role in protecting the public and so believe that they have to police all aspects of a registrants life.

If the organisation is to continue the limit of their remit must be stated, or do they believe they have no limit ?

Becoming involved in civil disputes is clearly beyond their remit, there are accepted recourses in law to deal with these. Where criminal acts are committed the courts decide, then the HPC can act when the outcomes are known.

It will not be long before the HPC is called to account and the sooner the better.
Before mass resignations by members how about those of our colleagues accepting pay for involvement resigning, this could be the first step in reform.

I feel they see themselves a a sort of House of Lords, where they can sit in judgement on their peers, if the accused so chooses. In that situation a Lord can choose where he is tried, I choose the civil and crimininal courts for my errors, the HPC for my professional ones !

Regards

 

Unfortunatly the opposite has just happened. The body that is reponsible for overseeing the regulatory bodies and reporting to Westminister on their performance has given the HPC praise. See this thread that Newsbot started: http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=16492

 

Hello everyone,

As a newly qualified pod, and therefore, still naive to the 'politics' that occur within our profession, to hear some of your stories is quite scary. I think it is only fair that if you are under investigation by the HPC you should be informed by the HPC before it is taken as far as a formal hearing, surely this is demanding nothing more than good manners?
It does worry me, but I guess as long as I maintain accurate records and up-to-date with CPD activities and stock, I have my back covered.

 

William,
Was there any indication that the body overseeing the HPC would ever do anything other than praise them? The individual members of this regulatory body are not policed or controlled by the same draconian guidelines as we are. Are they really bothered about us, after all it's hardly going to effect them personally is it? What we must decide is if the HPC are behaving reasonably and proportionately, if they are not then their existence can be legally challenged. I submit that this is the case for reasons given in postings above. I agree with rosherville our colleagues who are excepting payment for being involved with the HPC should all resign. This would benefit the public at large.