Podiatry assistants / assistant podiatrists course?

I second your second.

To be honest the whole "fhps / pods are rubbish" thing has been done to death here and elsewhere.:deadhorse: Hell, its got its own forum practically dedicated to that one single subject! (TFS in case anyone is wondering). Perhaps it should stay there and not "spill out onto the streets" so to speak.

This is an interesting and relevant thread, lets not see it disintergrate into the usual fracas.

Just my view.

Robert

 

Hi All

Sorry server crashed this morning and had only just come back on.

I had a reply ready which said what has been said now

So I didnt want to start it up again

If those that wish want to start another thread on the subject feel free
Cheers
Derek

 

Dear DTT,
With all due respect, it was you who raised the issue of FHPs being encouraged to post on orthopeds forum, and it was you who brought them into the discussion.
I responded with facts.
Throwing away the bat and refusing to play ball anymore will not alter the facts, however unpalatable they are to you.
Dido

 

Hi Dido

That was a part of a reply I made to REG that my mate Trigg..sorry hrm (wrong forum) seized upon.


To

But might I respectfully suggest we keep one forum free of that B**$£ks??:bang:

Cheers

Derek
Cheers

 

David

Clearly your suggestion has not been heeded.

Is it time for you to act?

I have held back my reply to Derek, in good faith.

Bob

 

Dear Derek,

I am not too sure what B@%&$£*s you are referring to ?

I too await the intervention of a moderator to relocate the last few posts.

Then perhaps we can return to discussing my original post?

Yours hopefully
Dido

 

Hello Admin,
Thank you for re-opening the thread and for posting Mark's most erudite comments.
Hopefully, this will invite some useful discussion.
Dido

 

Yes, thanks Admin, that Russell guy does write a good note?

Mark I agree with almost everything you said.

I believe I can see the proposed course as a method of teaching Podiatry does have merits.

But as you say it is the potential consequences of the misuse of this 'assistant podiatrist' qualification that is the dilema.

A quick aside is not Podiatrist a protected title for HPC registrants only?

IMO we are faced with a government that wants it cake and eat it. It wants a highly educated work force but constantly undermines those skills by inventing assistant posts, everywhere not just Pod.

I think that possibly Podiatry could deliver their demands if they gave us Functional Closure then left us to sort out the consequences.

I know you have issues with management and unions being under the same roof, but would this have been any different before the Camden Accord?

Bob

 

Thanks to Admin for bearing with the thread.

Thanks To Mark (Russell) for laying out the whole picture so clearly.

Since I'm not a member of the SCP it is only right that I do not comment on the situation within that body.

I'm on record here and elsewhere ( and really, it's just stating the obvious) as stating that until the profession (and that includes all those working in the field of foot health) in the UK wakes up and becomes united, we will not be strong enough to argue our point of view with anyone, and least of all with a Government body who want to see best value for their £.

We may well have missed the boat.

A profession who tells it's Masters in the Dept of Health that they don't want to cut nails, or carry out palliative care treatment has only itself to blame if they (the Masters) start to look for a less expensive and more compliant workforce.

Respectfully,

 

David,
There are many of us in pp who are very willing to cut toenails and provide palliative care. Unfortunately, the necessary referral pathways and remuneration arrangements,that would allow us to do this do not exist. You cannot blame the profession for the NHS's myopic outlook.
Dido

 

One danger with an assistant grade being allowed to perform scalpel work in the NHS is that these posts will actually be filled primarily by new graduate podiatrist, have treated an OT who is in exactly this position now

podiatry on the cheap

 

Dido,
I am well aware that most pps will do this work, and I applaud that.

However, had the UK profession been able to speak with one voice I'm sure the majority would have said that it was only right and proper that this was kept within and under the control of our profession.

Specifically I can and do blame a procession of NHS Podiatry Managers happy to acquiesce to the wishes of cost-cutters further up their lines of command.

I apologise for not making this clear.

 

[However, had the UK profession been able to speak with one voice I'm sure the majority would have said that it was only right and proper that this was kept within and under the control of our profession.


I could not agree more.


Specifically I can and do blame a procession of NHS Podiatry Managers happy to acquiesce to the wishes of cost-cutters further up their lines of command.
.[/QUOTE]

As someone who has had considerable experience of NHS Podiatry I can tell you that NHS mnagers do not have a lot of choice in the way they manage their departments. I could wax lyrical about the merits and demerits of these NHS employees but will refrain. The reasons being,
a) It is wandering off-topic and will get the thread closed again
b) It will not contribute positively to the debate.

It is not helpful to try an apportion blame for the mess we are in, it is more important to look for a way out of it.
I was hoping to have more input from educationalists on this topic.
Dido

 

I too regret the sniping but must make it clear that my original post was not sniping at the Society but rather - as I think became clear - supporting Dido et al who had the courage to post the report.

What is now very interesting is that all (or nearly all) the posters with serious points to make, from whatever background are coming to the same conclusion, viz (and you will correct me if I am wrong):

- the professional bodies must talk to each other to present a united front to the 'government'

- there is no shortage of registered professionals but the 'governement' needs to think about the proper employment of those registrants

- there is no real animosity against assistant grades provided that these are controlled by the registered professionals

- that the registered profession should be in control of it's own destiny

I will be grateful to hear any additional 'points of agreement' and whether any poster has fundamental objections to the list above.

All the best

Bill Liggins

 

Dido,
You said (much cut):
"As someone who has had considerable experience of NHS Podiatry I can tell you that NHS mnagers do not have a lot of choice in the way they manage their departments".

I have to say I saw plenty of "empire-building" during my last NHS term (1991-97). Agreed though, staff in general (those at the coal-face) were willing, if a trifle fed-up.

Bill,
I for one agree completely with your summing-up.

Cheers,

 

Bill.

I do believe this is a deja view?

No problem with your summary.

So where next?

And please do not say a 'General Podiatric Council'.

We have been there, is it now time to put history behind us and think outside of the box?

A very calm Bob

 

Hi All

Now hear this

I am not sniping, getting personal, getting off thread ( it is relevant if you stop and think) or anything else other than stating my point of view. Whether you agree with it or not ....

I honestly believe our profession has now gone past the point of no return:craig:

Anyone that thinks the powers that be do not monitor ALL sites to thwart any constructive advancement is very naive.

I have already been there once in my former life with my phone tapped during a dispute etc so perhaps I have a more "informed outlook".

Podiatry Assistants are FHP's but under another name AND PLEASE DON'T START ABOUT LEVELS OF TRAINING it is irrelevant .

They have put yet another division ( divide and conquer) into the profession but this time given them the air of respectability by their term PODIATRY assistants.

Bob touched on the subject is that title legal ??

NO!!

Your right Mark VERY right as usual

How many are going to stay in the NHS once trained when they realise there is more money to be made outside??

How will Bobs functional; closure work then ?? HOW do you stop these people without strict regulation ? Like we have now perhaps??

We had the chance to integrate FHP's into the industry AS ASSISTANTS as many suggested ,but we chose to go down the historical road of vitriol and denigration by the hard core.

They cost nothing to train as far as the NHS is concerned so...

We didn't take the olive branch offered and so now we are seeing IMO the demise of this "profession" as we know it.

!

Again Mark so so true, but again those within were the ones that wanted to "get rid of routine work" "Those that watch" must be laughing all the way to the bank:craig:

As far as Bills post goes yes I agree100%

But Mark, Bob..

How hard did we three work to get ALL the relevant sides round the table to unite the profession when the HPC was being born and move forward as one voice ??:deadhorse:

Dido

There is the answer to all your questions to me

Depressingly

Cheers
Derek

 

Thank you for your answer DTT.

I will now go outside and shoot myself on the rhubarb.


:deadhorse:

 

Hi Dido

Sorry to be so depressing but it's just how I see it.

The advent of this grade is probably the most serious threat this profession has ever known IMO
Cheers

Derek

 

Derek,

Just before this thread gets closed down for snipimg please explain why?

I have no problem with it, it is proposed to be delivered within a 'regulated environment'. Delivered by 'recognised and accredited training institutions'.

Exactly what is the problem?

Bob

 

Dido,

Doesn't it speak volumes that the two groups this move actually benefits (Educators and Managers) are saying nothing?
It does to me.

In light of the information provided by Mark, and without specifically mentioning the SCP (which I do not intend to do) it is difficult for me to comment further.

From your earlier postings I assumed you were a professional body apologist (as in "my professional body can do no wrong"). I see now that you are not. I'm sorry about that - my mistake - please accept my apologies.

My advice is to discuss this with Mark directly - he is probably more familiar with the in-house and political ramifications than most, and is a very helpful chap.

Mark,
if you want to discuss this with me privately please ring or PM me.

Cheers,

 

David,

With respect, I would like to remind you that I originally posted in the spirit of openness. The person who allowed me to promulagate this valuable information will be facing consequences, so I think we should all bear that in mind when we comment.

I am well aware of the structure of the SCP and Mark's individual views, however, the SCP is more demoncratic that you would like to imply.

It would be regrettable if this very pertinent and useful thread was to be closed yet again because of attempts at 'point-scoring'

Dido

 

Bob

If I can take you back to your previous post where some level of agreement appeared to exist

"where do we go now, and please don't say General Podiatric Council"

I truly do not know. Perhaps the Society could be persuaded by it's membership to sit down and discuss this single issue with the other bodies? It would at least be a start.

Dido, I totally agree with you concerning the courage and openess of the individual who may be penalised as a result of providing the report. I hope that they do not suffer greatly. Hopefully they will take heart from the (sensible) discussion and the associated support.

Bill

 

Dido,

I support your comments. Going PM is the antithesis of open debate.
Mark is a great guy, he had 'revolutionary' ideas, unfortunately ill health meant his time on Council was cut short, otherwise we may have been having some other interesting debates. Still things have moved on since his time, now the private practice is no longer a 'special interest group', not yet a Faculty but well on its way.

Bill,

I am not really privy to why the talks between the Society and other bodies broke down. But they did happen.

As far as the statement that was put out to the members at the time goes (not a quote) 'the Society and Institute have agreed to maintain cordial relationships'.

The chair of the Society is only elected for a 3 year term, not sure about the Institute, so 'emphasis and personalities' can change. I think it is a shame that this issue has arisen at the start of Janet McInnes's term as chair, she is an educator, however her initial position was one of listening and openness.

The Society has a new democratic body the Annual Delegates Assembly. It relies on 'motions' being generated by the membership then debated and voted on.

So if you think 'this' is a single issue, what would the wording of the 'Motion' be?

I am a delegate my experience is the wording is very important.

I think you do not have to worry too much about the report writer, so far there has been no backlash, anyway the author is very robust.

I do understand your and David's resentment of the SCP but I get the impression (because you two are before my time) things have significantly changed. Forums have been very powerful.

Bob Golding

 

"What is now very interesting is that all (or nearly all) the posters with serious points to make, from whatever background are coming to the same conclusion, viz (and you will correct me if I am wrong):

- the professional bodies must talk to each other to present a united front to the 'government'

- there is no shortage of registered professionals but the 'governement' needs to think about the proper employment of those registrants

- there is no real animosity against assistant grades provided that these are controlled by the registered professionals

- that the registered profession should be in control of it's own destiny"


I regret that I cannot agree with Bill’s conclusions (post #57):

- some of the professional bodies (who have registered members) will NOT talk to each other and present a united front to the ‘government’.

- the government equates ‘chiropody’ and ‘podiatry’. Most of us recognise a difference.

- oh yes there is - and FHPs are assistant to nobody (self-employed)!

- if the degree profession agreed to be known as ‘podiatrists’ and the non-degree workers were given the title ‘chiropodist’, ALL would have titles that almost all practitioners would be content with. The distinction between the groups grows wider every day; LA, POMS, Surgery, Prescription writing, NHS employment, etc - how many differences do you need to recognise them as different groups?

The advantages of accepting the above? ALL have titles sufficiently different for public recognition of the difference. ALL could be regulated at their appropriate level and Bob gets his functional closure. The biggest problem with adopting this solution is the HPC because of its inability to change its own rules.

As for the fate of the whistle-blower, what sin can s/he be said to have committed?

 

Johnpod,

You obviously think that the registered sector are stupid.

The demographics of the majority of 'Podiatry/chiropody' private clients is the over 60s. They identify with chiropody.

The official position of the Society is they are just two words for the same thing.

Nice try.

No wonder 'talks' brake down!


As you assert 1 year trained Foot Health people are assured they are NOT assistants to anyone.

So no chance of any progress.

WE (the profession) need functional closure.

Bob

 

I have made no suggestion that the registered sector are 'stupid'. The fact is that there is intelligence on all sides, but different points of view (or vested interests, if you prefer it).

"The demographics of the majority of 'Podiatry/chiropody' private clients is the over 60s. They identify with chiropody"
- So is it democratic to impose another (dual) title upon them that they do not recognise?



'"The official position of the society is they are just two words for the same thing"
- I'm sure it is! Many of us (across the occupation) think differently.

Self-employed practitioners cannot be supervised, therefore they cannot be classed as assistants.

 

Johnpod,

Let us see if Bill or David want to comment on your position. I assume this is the official Alliance position.

I have nothing to add to my previous reply.

Bob.

 

REG

You are out of order in assuming any such thing, as well you recognise.

I'm sure the Alliance will make its official position quite clear when called upon to do so.

That you have nothing to add to your previous post is rather obvious and something of a relief.

 

Johnpod

Sorry but I am not sure what offence I have caused here. I am sure you have already declared your allegiance to the Alliance.

The thread has moved towards Bill suggesting all the bodies getting around the table to discuss a single issue.

While I do not speak for the Society I am a member. I can think of no deal on your proposal the Council of the Society could negotiate that would get approval from the membership.

The course this thread is about will produce an assistant podiatry grade with I would suggest much greater ability to perform in private practice than the majority of FHP training schemes.

respectfully Bob.

 

Hi Bob

Sorry for the delay in the reply (very busy day)

??? don't understand ??

Regulated by whom ?? SCP ? HPC ? Yet another toothless regulatory body ??

When they leave the NHS and work in PP there is no regulation there cannot be any regulation but they practice PODIATRY ( as listed in their title) and will be doing 50% of your membership out of a job !! AND as it was quoted within the NHS where do the new degree pods train ?

IRRELEVANT !! FHP TRAINING UNDER A DIFFERENT TITLE!!

If you cant see it fella I am not going to explain it to you:bang:

Cheers
Derek

 

Then I fear, JohnPod. that we are back to square one and stuck there for eternity.

No chance of discussion; no chance of agreement; no professional control; no future.

The 'government' will continue to sneer and laugh at ALL the professional bodies and manipulate them to their content.

Well, I tried.

Congratulations.

Bill

 

Now, at last, we are in genuine agreement. We both see it as it really is.

 

Hi Bill,

Sorry to say I agree.

I've suggested a course of action to DIDO (which could easily be reported back on here) and pointed out the remarkable lack of comment from both managers and educators.

My post rather seems to have fallen on stony ground - oh well.

IMO with the current climate there is no hope of the UK professional bodies meeting and presenting a united front.

I'm bowing out of this thread.

Cheers everyone.

 

Derek,

You really did not understand my post did you.

I also think you do not understand the difference between the 'regulation of courses run under the umbrella of 'further education' and the total lack of regulation of courses run by 'private trainers'.

With respect I think it is you that needs the instruction.

Bill, and now David we crossed on posting, but

Unfortunately I think that is exactly where we are at. That is why I believe before anything can progress we need to split the bodies that are associated with private trainers from those that are not.

Not nice I know but otherwise self interest will always cause conflict.

Bob.

 

Hi Bob

I totally understand the situation Bob as does M R !!

.


I understand perfectly that FHP'S UNDER ANOTHER NAME ARE BEING PRODUCED TO DRIVE YET ANOTHER DIVISION INTO A FRAGMENTED PROFESSION !!

And if that statement does not confirm it ??

Lets split it all again so the PA's are better than the FHP's and the degree trained pods are better than diploma trained...blah blah blah

However you want to dress it up, they are NOT PODIATRISTS that are being trained they are FHP's !!

Christ mate have we not got enough already that some of us are trying to sort out ?? ( see my previous post "they are here and will not go away")

Surly you do not believe that with the advent of PA's the FHP's are going to disappear do you ???

Look at Dido's posts she is happy to provide palliative care to patients as are 50% of your membership and I suspect 90% of IPPS of whichever flavour.

The profession produces PODIATRISTS to maintain the continuity of learning excellence.

This grade will damage the numbers and available training facilities ( as Andy said) " Podiatry on the cheap"

I am so so surprised that an old war horse like you would be supporting such a move, but we have had differing views in the past and that has not changed now it would seem .

Nothing wrong with that BTW

cheers
Derek

 

Derek,

You still do not understand what I am saying (probably my fault). I am sorry if this is repeating myself.

As far as I an concerned the title FHP defines nothing. It was invented and used originally by SMAE or the Alliance (open college?) to describe the people they trained. It now seems to be the accepted title for anyone offering chiropody/podiatry (they are the same words and have the same meaning) whether they be people who had been practicing for years and refused to register or new entrants trained by SMAE, Open College, Stonebridge, BSJ, NHS footcare assistants, etc.

I concede your point, I have never denied it they do exist.

I do not concede that 'some of us are trying to do something about it'. In fact IMO the BChPA and Alliance are complicit in maintaining the the schism between the registered and unregistered by allowing them membership, admittedly under a technically different title.

Let me say that to some degree by supporting this training initiative I am playing devils advocate. To assemble a good counter argument to anything it is IMO important to try and see all sides.

Unfortunately from my point of view nothing has come out of this debate that has shown a way forward, but as Bill says shows why we are stuck in the past.

So back to why the proposed course does have some merit, the course not the potential consequences.

This approach is nothing new and certainly not unique to Podiatry. The same skills escalator is used in many professions physio is a good example in health care social work outside of health care.

Because the training is delivered by the same institutions that produce the degree courses the skills acquisition can be consistent and slotted into the overall picture. Modern degrees are just a series of modules.

The assistant grade is being trained to and told to work 'under supervision' unlike the private trainers who claim to produce autonomous practitioners.

The assistant grade is seen as a stepping stone, FHPs have no recognisable career progression pathway.

Why do I think we need to 'split' the profession? Because it just recognises the situation that exists. What amazes me most is that after decades of the previously unregistered winging about not being recognised they conspire to inflict the same misery on a new generation of hopefuls.

I repeat once again I believe the only way forward for our and the rest of the HPC registered professions is FUNCTIONAL CLOSURE.

I fail to see that any organisation that has a financial interest in producing practitioners who did not qualify for the functional closure criteria supporting this course.

OK Del, we could probably solve this argument in half an hour in a pub, definitions and positions being tackled quickly. Forums are not like that they are laborious.

Have a good day.

Bob