Political Developments

Hi Polly!

That's interesting...
If you are right the I have been misinformed.
I really was told this. Honest!

I just found the Dentists Act on the Net and YES! Dentistry is protected, BUT could someone do Mouth Care and be a Mouth Care Professional?

I've just emailed the General Dental Council and I'll tell you what they say if/when they reply.

Mark certainly gets us thinking...

Cheers,

Robin.

 

Hi All!

Today I got a reply from the General Dental Council regarding the question of if one could practice as a 'Mouth Health Pofessional'.

Here is the answer:

Dear Mr Crawley,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 29 January 2005.

The business of dentistry
You cannot call yourself a mouth care professional and carry out the business of dentistry. I would like to draw your attention to section 38(1) of the Dentists Act 1984 ("the Act") which makes it illegal for a person who is not a registered dentist, registered medical practitioner or visiting EEA practitioner to "practise or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising or as being prepared to practise dentistry." The Act defines the practice of dentistry as: "...the performance of any such operation and the giving of any such treatment, advice or attendance as is usually performed or given by dentists; and any person who performs any operation or gives any treatment, advice or attendance on or to any person as preparatory to or for the purpose of or in connection with the fitting, insertion or fixing of dentures, artifical teeth or other dental appliances shall be deemed to have practised dentistry within the meaning of this Act." I would also highlight the following extract from Maintaining Standards, which is guidance to dentists, dental hygienists and dental therapists on professional and personal conduct.

Carrying on the Business of Dentistry - Restrictions
6.10 A person is said to be involved in the business of dentistry when, either as an individual or as a member of a partnership, that person receives payment for services amounting to the practice of dentistry provided by that person, by a partner, or by an employee of either of them.

Under the Dentists Act there are a number of circumstances in which a body corporate or a person who is not a registered dental or medical practitioner may be involved in the business of dentistry. These include persons and bodies corporate who were involved in the business of dentistry before 21 July 1955; spouses or children of deceased dentists; trustees in bankruptcy; and companies providing dental treatment for their employees where the company does not profit from this.

A dentist who becomes a partner or an employee of someone who is carrying on the business of dentistry illegally may be liable to a charge of serious professional misconduct. A dentist who becomes a director or an employee of a body corporate which is carrying on the business of dentistry illegally would be similarly liable.

The Use of 'dental' and 'dentistry'
I also wish to draw your attention to another section in Maintaining Standards about the the use of the words 'dental' and 'dentistry' in company titles

6.13 Under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 the words 'dental' and 'dentistry' are protected. A company, or applicant for a Consumer Credit Licence, which proposes to use either or both of these words in its registered title is therefore required by Companies House to obtain a letter of non-objection from the Council.

I hope the information is of assistance to you.

Regards

Jonathan Martin
Lead Case Officer
Professional Standards Directorate

So!

Dentistry and anything construed as dentisry IS protected!!!

Mark I apologise

Dentists do have the whole mouthcare thing tied up.
Very very interesting I'd say...

This is the opposite of what I was told previously!
Hmmm....

Get you thinking doesn't it!

Cheers,

Robin.

 

Political Developments.

Hi Robin,
That was one of the points I was trying to make before, also. To do the job properly in law you need an Act and Section. This makes the offence and defines it! But the Powers-that-be have not seen fit to do this in our case?
We are left with a title protected, with nothing else. To enclose chiropody, the act not the title, we need a prosecution under the present Order in Council which will have to go right up to the High Court, possibly? That is if someone has the will and the money to follow it through of cause? (I have never read the old Act, was it 1960, but if the action was hedged in law I'm sure we would not be having this conversation now).
This Government just does not seem to have the will to do it as per dentistry which was well and truly worked out in Act, Statute and Statutory Instrument!!! But they (The Dentists), draw more blood than us don't they? (Only joking Dentists!).
Regards,
Colin.

 

Don't worry about it. Makes a change from me putting my foot in it. It appears though that every time the issue of regulation comes around, folks get very defensive about their respective positions. The purpose of raising regulation with government was not to take a swipe at grand-parented registrants or to open up further division within the profession; it was to try and get government to examine the failings of current legislation in the hope they might redress the position by considering a Podiatry Act to protect the practice of podiatry - just like dentistry.

No sector within this profession holds a monopoly of practice rights, but the profession itself is a monopoly provider. As long as there is division along the lines of professional bodies and training - with all the historical issues at play - disunity will continue and with it the inability to deal with government and the institutions from a position of strength. If anything, the current regualtory environment will promote division for the forseeable future. The profession is not closed and the market remains unprotected and vulnerable. And whether you are a graduate podiatrist or a grand-parented registrant your ability to be part of a dynamic and established profession will remain extremely limited.

Some time ago, on this forum, I promised to set-out proposals for the development of a professional policy for establishement of podiatry in the UK - looking at what I would consider to be our aims, objectives and strategy. Over the last four months, these proposals were submitted to the forum of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists who, as the largest professional body, were best placed (in my opinion) to take them forward. They have declined to do so. Given that the issues the profession faces are not unique to the UK, I reproduce the outline proposals for development of the profession in the hope that someone, somewhere may derive a little benefit from the content.

Mark Russell

OBJECTIVES

The principal objective of this profession must be the establishment of a network of practice that, through its operation, benefits its members, and by association, its patients, to the maximum possible level. In material terms, that means creating a system that rewards and increases the wealth of those who participate in the delivery of service, commensurate with their ability and status they engender through the application of their practice. In practical terms, that means securing a platform of operation that provides a measure of security, independence and autonomy that protects the individual’s employment, irrespective of prevailing market conditions.

At present we have a foot health market that exists in two distinct arenas – the public and private sectors. Both demonstrate considerable strengths and weaknesses. Within the public sphere, the NHS podiatry service has reached a point of crisis, where demand has spiraled without a corresponding rise in the available supply. Today, many thousands of patients are being denied essential care through no fault of their own and because of circumstance; the profession is unable to offer them an equitable alternative.

Legislative and practical barriers prohibit greater integration between the public and private providers and as a result patients have been placed in professional limbo. Solutions to this problem have been the utilisation of the voluntary sector and the unplanned migration to an unregulated private market of many of our patients without the necessary safeguards in terms of utility and ability to pay.

Within the workforce these changes have had an adverse effect. Salaried employment within the public sector has proved a negative experience for podiatrists. There is no incentive for rewarding good practice and no inhibition for retarding poor care either. Patient choice is non-existent and the standard of clinical practice has fallen as the workforce languishes in a depressed and counter-productive working environment. Income within NHS practice is extremely poor and has fallen in real terms with that of the average private practitioner, thus creating a dangerous imbalance in the marketplace. Whilst there is a desirable need for some level of public care, we are in danger of an imminent collapse of NHS podiatry, thus threatening the livelihood of many members and the health and well-being of those they serve.

But the private market is fragmented too. Changes to the regulation through the Health Professions Order have resulted in a lowering of standards without any foreseeable benefit. That such organisations as SMAE and the Alliance are seeking HPC accreditation for their Foot Health Practitioner courses demonstrate obvious weaknesses in current legislation and undermine the whole reasoning behind the Society’s tacit acceptance of the HPC’s implementation of the Act. The net effect is a constant dilution of the market in real terms to our members – something not helped by the SCP’s decision to admit the grand-parented registrant into general membership without first setting some benchmark through an examination to ensure competency and fitness to practice.

The principal objective, therefore, would be to protect and develop the market by reversing adverse trends, and in doing so, secure the following goals for the profession within a specified timeframe that I would suggest be considered at five years:

• Establishment of a secure, independent and autonomous practice network, protected, as far as possible from all adverse market conditions.
• Increase the wealth and prosperity of all members commensurate with the status they crave and deserve.
• Develop the clinical practice of podiatry for the benefit of society as a whole.
• Promote professional policies that sustain and develop the market for future generations to come.

To do so will require changes to the following:

• The structure of the profession within this country to a core NHS service and a devolved general practice.
• The way podiatric practice is funded and the system of remuneration for clinicians.
• How podiatry is regulated.
• How podiatry is represented.
• How and where podiatry education is structured and delivered.
• The transitional educational programme for foot and ankle surgery and how our graduates are supported financially through that process.
• The transitional educational programme for podiatric medical specialists and how our graduates are supported financially through that process.
• The collation of research and development for gait related disorders.




STRATEGY

There are two strategies the profession can employ. The first is what I would call the confrontational approach. You mobilise opinion within the body of the profession and withdraw wholesale from the public arena. Given the prevailing conditions within the NHS podiatry service, such a move might not prove all that terribly difficult. The repressive environment of public sector practice combined with the insecurities and inhibitions engendered by ‘Agenda for Change’ have created an atmosphere of discontent like never before. Whereas in previous years it would have been near impossible to consider the possibilities of industrial action, now we are faced with the reality of mass defection to the private marketplace by many experienced (and not so experienced) NHS employees. Retaining the NHS workforce has become an enormous problem; dismantling it might not prove all that difficult.

But such a strategy, although it may very well secure the ultimate goal, would be detrimental to our patients, at the same time as producing unstable and uncertain conditions for practitioners in both marketplaces. Podiatry does not benefit in the same way as dentistry from an established, developed and protected private market. The supporting institutions such as dedicated insurance carriers and mutuals, simply do not exist. A smooth transition to establishing a vibrant practice base in the private market would not be easy and the effect on many of our colleagues may well prove detrimental in the short to medium term. When dentistry pulled out of NHS care they had a viable fall-back option which subsequently enhanced their bargaining position with government immensely. If the dental profession re-engages with public care in the future it will be on their terms. Unfortunately, if we adopted a similar strategy, it would take many years before podiatry was able to do the same.

The alternative strategy would be a considered and planned approach.

• We need to undertake scientific population based needs assessment to establish the levels of foot/mobility problems within the community (not simply the existing caseload)
• This needs to be mapped to the projected changes in demographics and disease prevalence etc.
• We need to do work on identifying the input required to meet these health needs
• We need to examine in detail the aspirations and skills/competencies of the ‘whole’ profession
• We need to have a long-term policy/strategy, invest in it and deliver.

And to have a long-term policy and strategy we need to create one in the first instance. That is the first step.


POLITICAL POLICY

It is a fact that the delivery of Podiatry and Related activities have become a political issue. To some degree they always have been but often drowned out by that on the National Health Service as a whole. However, in recent years, through a range of pressures and government’s attempts to increase the regulatory control on health professionals, the dialogue has become increasingly strident.

The social pressures regarding health and how it impacts on the profession are various and wide ranging. As a society we are living longer, increasing the amount of age related infirmities. Obesity is an increasing problem bringing with it a wide range of potentially dangerous clinical conditions; the recent statistics relating to the alarming acceleration in the numbers of those suffering from diabetes are but one example. The rise of “Sports Medicine” shows that the public’s awareness of activity related warning signs of potential injuries and chronic malfunctions is increasing. The fortunes spent on research into special equipment for sports of all types, show that there is real economic activity aimed at the areas of gait and biomechanical movement. This is bound to raise a need for medical services in these areas.

In developing a plan to address many of these issues the Society could, as has been done often by others in different professions, seek to persuade the creation of yet another committee of inquiry or quango to enlarge upon and report on the issues. The Society would no doubt be asked to prepare a submission as part of that process – which would almost certainly take years.

This Government, which will probably form the basis of the next, has determined that a large part of its focus for justification for re-election is its emphasis on public services and at the heart of that is the National Health Service. For good or ill, podiatry has had its profile and place within that service, raised considerably in recent times. The Society has a choice. It can either await government’s re-election (and in some ways it does not matter which political party or parties form the government) or it can begin to prepare its view of the way forward, so that when a new administration comes into being there are proposals to hand to be developed with the blessing of central government.

However, it is not just the proposals that are important, it is the implementation phase that will be an equal focus of attention and given the will the Society is well placed to be a mainstay in that implementation.

In round terms there are some 16,000 practicing chiropodists/ podiatrists in the UK. The profession is divided almost equally between those who are state registered, of whom there are some 9,000 working in both the NHS and private practice and those who are not. New legislation coming into effect this year 2005 seeks to protect the title of “chiropodist” or “podiatrist” in that registration with the Health Professions Council is necessary to use these titles legally.

The Society has a membership of some 10,000 and, irrespective of the composition of that membership, is thus well placed to take a leadership position in advancing the role and status of the profession. It is in existence, it has a representative membership, can tap into a wealth of knowledge regarding clinical practice and its place and importance in communities. Above all, it can position itself as being a medium for change in the delivery of services to the public at large. Clearly the Society is not the only professional grouping in the podiatry marketplace and its preponderance of state registered members could lead to its being viewed entirely as form of trade union for that grouping. However outside the profession the Society is not seen as that simply because in the first instance its perceived profile has been subsumed into that of the NHS as a whole; the fact that there are other groupings has protected it from such an overt charge. It can thus develop a position whereby it presents itself as a body, which, having identified the developing pressures in its field, is reacting and indeed anticipating the impact throughout its health sector and society.

However this is not a short or one off process. The timing is set by government and within that the way in which our parliamentary process works. Each year government has to go to parliament for supply – the annual budget - round and no government can commit any succeeding one. Thus if real progress is to be made it is essential that initiatives are raised as early as possible in a government’s programme to get a level of interest and commitment and thereby insertion into their programme. The common assumption is that there will be an election in May of this year. This means that the intervening months have to be used to prepare a submission to government making clear the Society’s views on the future of both it and the profession as a whole.

It is always easy to state that one must aim high. Dealing with government is not an easy ride. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that both government and the Society have a wide range of constituencies to address if success is to be achieved; the professions, Parliament and individual members, the government of the day, the civil service and the public at large will all have an interest and special positions to argue.

Modest aims are often not recognised as such but carry the danger of not being seen to be ambitious enough. Governments cannot appreciate that management by initiative is not a substitute for steady progress. However in the general melee at the beginning of a government where there is a real chance of being heard it is important to have well thought through proposed initiatives which can be put into the Civil Service for analysis and endorsement and then converted into policies. It is not simply that the loudest voice will be listened to. It is that the loudest voice which is judged to be the one that knows what it is talking about; has proposals that make sense and appreciate that dealing with the wheels of government takes patience, a capacity for taking pains (repetitively!) and above all has a well researched and thought through attitude approach to the problem in hand.

It is believed that as a necessarily broad starting point the aims and objectives for the Society's political policy should comprise the following

The Preparation of a Report from the Society to Government for presentation after the next General Election
An outline of this Report is attached to this proposal. Clearly at this stage with the short time available for preparation the outline cannot be all embracing and there must be omissions that the Society would seek to include.

Formulate a Basis for Consultation throughout the Chiropody/Podiatry Professional Organisations
It is believed that in the first instance the consultation should focus on the profession. There will have to be wider consultation with the medical profession as a whole but it is believed that this should follow the clarification of the Society’s and fellow professional views so that if it is possible to speak with one voice the profession should do so

Agree as far as Possible with those Organisations the Future Structure of the Profession
This is likely to be the most difficult and contentious part of the whole exercise. Some forty years have passed since the Society’s element of health care was brought into the NHS and it would not be an exaggeration to say that to some degree the sector has suffered in terms of government’s attention because of that. However as pointed out above the pressures for focusing that attention are now substantial and given the Society’s positioning and the demands made by government then a consensus should be possible – but not without time, effort and patience.

Act as the Spearhead in Dialogue with Government and the Medical Profession as a whole as to the Implementation of that Structure
To occupy this crucial position it is necessary to have negotiated a successful closure on that above. It is believed that for the reasons already stated that this is possible.

AN OUTLINE OF THE REPORT

There follows below an outline of a possible outline plan for presentation by the Society to government. At this stage it has to be an outline since much work will need to be done in both formulating the document and consultation within the Society


INTRODUCTION
What this report is about and why it is needed

A POLITICAL SERVICE
The place of podiatry within the health service and why the delivery
within that service has become a political issue
The Role of Politicians
The Five Constituencies
1. The Government
2. The Civil Service
3. Parliament
4. The Public
5. The Profession
Managing the Interfaces

THE SERVICE AND HOW IT WORKS
The Demand for Chiropody and Podiatry Services
How and Where it is delivered
The Basic Cost and Price Mechanisms
The Public and Private Delivery Mechanisms

THE SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS
The History of Regulation
The Scope of Present Regulation
The Pressure for Change
The Impact and Management of Change

THE PRESENT COST AND BENEFIT STRUCTURE TO THE CONSUMER
How does the Consumer access the Service
What are the Barriers to Access
How does the Cost/Price Structure impact the Consumer
How does the Consumer measure the Effectiveness of Delivery
The Issue of Compensation for the Consumer

THE PRESENT COST AND BENEFIT STRUCTURE TO THE HEALTH SERVICE
How is the Profession viewed by The Health Service
How is its effectiveness assessed
What does The Government see as the coming pressures on the service
What are the Barriers to a dialogue with Government re Change
Why should Government Care

THE PRESSURES ON THE PROFESSION
Demographic
Social
The Changing Nature of Health Care
The Need to Finance such Changes
The Need to Manage the Profession
The Medical Institutions
The Society’s Relationship with Its Peer Groups

THE GOVERNANCE OF THE PROFESSION
The various Representative Bodies
The Relationship with The Health Service
The Society as a Leader
The Relationship with The Medical Institutions
The Relationship with The Health Professions Council

THE WAY FORWARD
Should Anything be Done
Who should do it
A Response to Known Pressures
An Approach to Change

RECOMMENDATIONS
Structural Revision
Finance and The Financing of Practice
Private Health Schemes
Education and Standards

APPENDICES

 

Mark
"the purpose of raising regulation with government was not to take a swipe at grand-parented registrants or to open up further division within the profession;"

Oh really ??

"And whether you are a graduate podiatrist or a grand-parented registrant "

Yet another division ??

Et tu brutae

Yours mistrustingly

Derek

 

Hi Derek,
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or not.
In the past Mark has called for all podiatrists to undergo a test of competence every 5 years (thats all, and would include the Chairman of the SCP, Mike Batt, you, me and Mark).
He has explained that this would at least give us a standard across the boards.
He has acknowledged that there are good and bad practitioners from the privately-trained sector and the 3-year trained sector.

His proposals would have a far-reaching beneficial effect on the profession as a whole if they were carried through. They would certainly get rid of the factions which still exist (if unsure tap into thatfootsite).

I'm certain Mark is right - I wouldn't have a problem with being tested every five years - would you?
Regards,
Davidh

 

Netizens

Please forgive the intrusion to a most worthwhile discussion, my contribution is simply for information only and not intended to be any more

Many years ago when Australia were thinking about introducing a competency test for overseas podiatrists they put together a set of questions and tasks to be observed. This was the equivolent of a second year clinical examination at university. The education of podiatrists within the Commonwealth are very similar and have reciprosity via their Bachelor degree status.

To test the validity of the competence based examination a group of practitoners were selected at random from the Australian community and put to the test under the exact same conditions as would be in operation when the attestation of overseas candidates were being tested.


The result -- more than half of the group failed to reach 50%.

I am reminded of Charles Kaleb Cotton when he so wisely said, "Examinations are formidible enough , for the greatest fool can ask more than the wisest man can answer."


MOT style competence testing would not be a mode, I would choose and prefer other models such as recent evidence of CPD.

Cameron
Hey what do I know?

 

Political Developments.

Hi Derek,
Well there we have it in David H.' reply above!

I'm still listening to doubt, suggestion and DPM's at £20 a time (Is this right or have I misunderstood?).

How much will the new five year test cost? Yet another £200 plus???

Reference what is going on in the 'Thatfootsite' at the moment, I think some need a psychiatrist not a podiatrist - Sorry should that be a chiropodist, that is where the work is for the majority of us ISN'T IT!?!

Regards,

Colin.

 

Likewise, but it's coming anyhow. Recertification is already in place for dentists and doctors and I suspect is penciled in for podiatry too. Sometimes it's best to pre-empt the move from government - if we had with regulation we might just have had a dedicated registrar and actual closure by now.

Whatever method one uses it's bound to be flawed. Recent evidence of attendance at CME/CPD accredited courses doesn't prove anything except you were at the venue. Maybe they should check the bar receipts as well? I know one NHS manager who spent the entire weekend in bed with his secretary at a post-graduate course and claimed maximum points for his effort. But even recertification has problems - what is the point - to ensure the practitioner is safe to be let loose on the public? If so, where do you set the barrier?

In some areas this is not a problem - dosage of analgesia, sterilisation of instrumentation & etc. But what about prescribing functional orthoses? Read any of the streams on orthotic intervention and you have multiple views for most condition. More harm can be done to the developing foot with the wrong prescription, yet take a child with a gait defect and have them examined by ten podiatrists and you'll have ten different diagnoses and ten different prescriptions - and that's before you take into account the manufacturing process, which will also give differing devices even though the diagnoses and prescription are the same!

In 20+ years of practice I think I know only a dozen or so clinicians in the UK whom I would consider as competent in prescribing functional orthoses (and I’m not one of them), so where does that leave the rest of us? What’s more dangerous – the wrong dosage of LA or a damaging prescription in an eight-year-old child? Knowing and adhering to one’s limitations is obviously the best policy but how does society legislate to protect from errant and malicious practitioners like Shipman? Simply it cannot, but it can and should ensure that there is some standards of proficiency in every profession both at the end of training and throughout the career. As far as the latter is concerned, some accredited CME/CPD is preferable but surely it must also be supported by some form of examination and/or inspection too, otherwise what’s the point?

 

I knew you would pull me into this discussion, Mark, you silver tongued individual you.

>As far as the latter is concerned, some accredited CME/CPD is preferable but surely it must also be supported by some form of examination and/or inspection too, otherwise what’s the point?

I suppose that is what I am saying about examinations, there is no point. Irrespective what other disciplines have in position the likelihood of introducing a new barrier to podiatry is probably fraught with more problems than not. Despite whether it seems a good idea or not. For example one can only imagine if a practitioner was deemed unfit to practice, by whatever means, what litigation would follow if their ability to continue to earn a living were severely sanctioned. That would be, I would suggest, unfair and therefore unlikely to be implemented. Members of the same society (note the small 's') judging their peers would be morally wrong let alone the costs of seeding new guardian bodies, incredibly expensive.

CME/CPD may have major flaws but at least it does deal in the now and can be made compulsory for continued membership of a professional association. If this were extended to all members of HPC this would represent a level of quality assurance and reassurance to the public.

You know I wont be pulled into the orthoses debate because it is no secret I am not convinced of its authenticity and believe all podiatric biomechanics is gobbledegook and jargonised tripe, anyway .

However I would agree with you there are some outstanding examples of practitioners with flair and exemplary results. Not in the symptom reduction hooha that has little to condone the occult practice other than anecdotal bla, but the very interesting works reported by Slattery and Tinley on the number of bleeds in haemophiliacs. Not everyone may be aware of their pilot research but the number of bleeds reduced significantly with off the peg accommodative foot orthoses. Maintaining middle range motion and preserving end of range movement with lifts, tilts and wedges does appear to have a predictable physiological effect. Now that is interesting.

Something I have long been an advocate of is the recognition of specialities by registration authories such as the HPC or Registration Boards. Before a practitioner can trade as a biomechanic specialist, for example, I believe they should have credible qualification to do so. The same can be applied to a plethora of podiatric specialities including, a general practitioner. Progress to this level would involve examination and may I believe offer a more positive career structure to the clinical field.

To me that would present a simple and economical way to regulate a growing profession which if it does not watch out for itself will, I fear become smaller and smaller as individual specialities thrive at the expense of an apathetic majority.

The enemy is not without, Mark, the enemy is within.

What say you....?

Cameron
Hey what do I know

 

Hi David h

Because I disagree with one of your friends or you are incapable of understanding common sense does not make me obtuse thick or any other patronising insult you can think of!!

In fact I think you will find the vast majority of IPP's are now considering the real costs that this coming hpc legislation will make in real terms by forcing them to raise their fee's or take a cut in their profit margins.

To continue with a frankly unworkable "ideal" on top of an imperfect but soon to be working hpc I do not believe helps anyone especially those of us in private practice.

The NHS disease of meetings and committee's , endless form filling etc fill me with dread as it will soon be spilling into my world reducing efficiency and more to the point making me work longer hours for nothing . I talk to many Gp's , hosptal cosultants who are sick and tired of the administration because it is taking away their time to heal patients which is what they trained for.

I think Cameron and Colin have understood more that you and reply sensibly from two different aspects of the argument .

Mark has made what I deem a serious allegation of deception against an
" NHS manager" , I look forward to him supplying details of this to the HPC for disciplinary action to be taken against this/ these people as there may have been fraudulent use of expenses ,paid time etc . I await the outcome with interest.

Derek

 

I agree. You can do this by creating a licensing system within the registration system in much the same way as the GMC has done. Have a peek at the following suggestion and note the date:

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind03&L=podiatry&T=0&O=A&P=154919

You think I haven't figured that out by now? Besides, you told me as much twenty-two years ago. Somethings I never forget, even with the dementia.

 

Get a grip, son. You never heard of blackmail?

 

Ahh Mark

Never thought of that one

One hazard of working alone

Derek

 

Davidh

Sorry I didnt give a positive response to your question of testing every 5 years ( pressure of work)

I would willingly take a test every five years if that was in any way relevent to the practicality and improvement to the present system (or that which will come into force in a couple of months.)

For yours ( and others) benefit in case you have any further trouble understanding me :-

Every time I treat a patient , that patient has the opportunity to :-

1. State they are satisfied / dissatisfied with the service I have provided.

2 . If they are satisfied they will come back / recommend to others.

3 . If they are dissatified they can :-

1a . Not come back and not recommend me .

1b .Complain to other health care professionals and / or ( and here is the punch line)

2a . Complain to the HPC who will investgate the allegation and If proven due process will follow.

Advocating tests examinations is not only a waste of time it is not cost effective proves nothing . To quote Cameron :-

"I am reminded of Charles Kaleb Cotton when he so wisely said, "Examinations are formidible enough , for the greatest fool can ask more than the wisest man can answer."

Some of the wisest words I have seen on any podiatry sites I have seen on podiatry arena the above being a quote to remember.

The other I have taken from Craig in another thread :-


"Double fees --> loose half your patients --> make just as much money --> don't have to work so hard --> have a life."

That to me is called common sense !!!

The life I want ( and I believe I speak for a majority here ) is to make a good living as I have done for many years. Charge a fair fee for a good ,safe, effective service. Most of all HAVE A LIFE !!!

I do not want to be bogged down in unnecessary paperwork , beurocracy or have the stress involved in continual restriction or having my livelyhood put under threat by perpetual futile examinations much of which would certainly pertain to irelavancies that have no bearing on the "patient type" I treat or my "scope of practice" and again would take me away from my fee earning function and raise fee's .

The HPC is here to stay like it or not.

They have started EVERY registrant on a level playing field. Changes will obviously follow to structure the profession. That is common sense as academic / training levels and individual aspirations vary as we all know.

If the working format of the HPC is looked at without hysteria and bigotry you will see most of the concerns expressed by others are already covered within the framework , not perfectly , but a start to our future as a unified profession.

My opinion (obtuse or not)

Derek

 

Davidh (and others)

Oh and furthermore , in case You had not noticed:-

In the real world the politcal dictate in this country has been :-

To reduce civil servants (by 100.000 I think )

To reduce the "nanny state" ( as the public CAN decide for themselves)

As Marks proposal would INCREASE administration ( by creating yet another comittee etc).THAT is why it (at this time) it as an "IDEAL" ,and it aint gonna happen under this government!!!

So why persue a devisive course ??

Take away patient choice??

Who would treat the excess of patients left over if by Marks proposals to get rid of "practitioners HE deems are unsafe"?? Would they be better off with no care at all ?? I don't know the answer , do you ????

Backed up by Camerons facts on testing , if we got rid of the 50 % of practitioners who would fail revalidation testing , how would that help the present situation ??

Inevitably the NHS would not cope ,they cannot treat effectivly the patients they have now!!

"Harold" has been brought into the equasion in the name of patient protection

You cannot and never will eradicate the "Shipmans" of this world and certainly not by legislation . Corruption is self perpetuating and one(or more) will always slip through, that unfortunatly is the way of things.

"THE PODIATRY PROFESSION" is a very small cog in a great big wheel , not acute ( life threatening) , not glamorous ( as in your tv soaps) but downright ESSENTIAL to thousands of patients and because of that EVOLUTION must happen and that takes time.

No one can force things through at this stage ( however clever you are) to try breeds is division and mistrust .

We can only work together to achieve out aims ( Mark once told me " we both sing from the same hymn sheet)

Even after all that has been said I still believe that !! but we sing from opposing sides and until we can UNITE HONESTLY that will never change.

So once more "obtuse"?? ok if it makes you happy

But ,

If , after 38 years in "hands on health care" NOT ONE" of my patients has EVER complained about my treatments and care" my record speaks for itself !

Can you say the same ????

One last thing (sorry if I'm boring you)

This is an excellent site but it must be remembered by ALL , it is NOT a personal messaging service!!

It is viewed by the rest of the world along with insults ,spurious allegations and comments.

Can we please get back to a uniting dialogue and dare I say" lighten up "???

Yours in health



Derek

 

Hi all

I can't for the life of me understand why Shipman has been brought into this conversation, and another site (quite a volatile one too). He has absolutely nothing to do with bad practice. From what I can judge, having not seen the case papers etc and only going by MEDIA reports, he was a power crazed, murderous mad man who enjoyed killing people. Why give individuals such as this air time. To mention his name and chiopody/podiatry in the same sentence I find somewhat of an insult (and yes, I have been out there in the big wide world).

Cheers and Happy Valentines

David D

 

Hi David D

My reference to "Shipman" was in reply to Marks reference.

My point is, all the regulation in the world will not stop corruption (such a Shipman) getting into the system.

If sick twisted idividuals develop over time or indeed start out in any walk of life they will invariably never be found out until AFTER an event.

I agree to link this name with our profession is "attention seeking" to an article and should be viewed as only that.

Cheers

Derek

 

Hi Derek,
We have a huge problem in the UK with a disjointed podiatry profession which is being dictated to by professional bodies, other vested interests and the Dept of Health. I don't dispute you are a good and successful practitioner (although I can't be sure myself that not one of my patients has ever found cause to complain about my treatment!).

Mark identified a way to make the whole profession more active in determining it's own path, rather than the situation we have at the moment where those of us who are HPC-reg are swallowed up in an expensive civil-servant bum-polishing exercise.
It seems a shame that few (on either side of the fence) want to discuss, or look at his proposals in a neutral light.
Regards,
Davidh

 

Dear Dereck

Point taken

cheers

DavidD

 

Hi Davidh

Firstly can I just say my comments on my record is in no way setting myself up as anything special. The comment was made to support the fact anyone CAN work safely and effectivly if they stay within their scope of practice that is all. I make mistakes along with everyone else ( apart from my wife that is ) but when I do I will move heaven and earth to put them right .It works for me.

Yes we do have a disjointed profession I want unity desperatly as you ,Mark and many others do and as I have said many times I DO agree with much of what Mark has written , but ,

Where in my opinion differs is the "buffalo soldier " approch that Mark takes putting all SMAE trained pods ( and others) many of whom have been in practice for many years "on offer" as it were to have their livlihoods taken away from them on the generalied say so of one section of the profession .

If you forget your ties (past or present) with the SCP ( and your obvious bias towards Marks opinion) ( that is not a critisim by the way) and look through the eyes of an IPP you will perhaps understand more where I am coming from .

Until the professional bodies get their act together and start genuinely working toward unity I fear the predjuduces of the past will never go away and the "divide and conqour" rule will apply across the board .

I am also a realist David ( I have to be to run a business properly), and for that reason I take it you assume I "look at things in a Neutral light" that could not be further from the truth. I balance MY SITUATION and what is going on around me ( politically ) and read aspirations and ideals from passionate well read people, I then form an opinion .

Look around you David this government is cutting civil servants jobs by the thousands , the dentists bloodied the governments nose by their withdrawl from the NHS does that sound to you like we have a chance ?? They will never allow that situation to arise again with any group of workers.

I don't want the HPC anymore than you do ,I want to be left alone to carry on as usual but that aint gonna happen either .

So as I have said many times before "like it or not the hpc is here to stay" We will only get advancement within its framework and by ALL signing from the same hymn sheet and singing with a "majority" voice.

How we are going to get there ?? I don't know, but again to refer to Craig in another thread ,"the only way is to wait for the present system to die off ,and that takes time" ( not a direct quote but the gist is there).

We have got to learn to TOLLERATE each other thats a move in the right direction dont you think ??

Derek

 

Hi Derek,
Just for the record, I have absolutely no ties or loyalties to the SCP. I announced the fact on several forums when I jumped ship, and now reside within the ranks of the BChPA. I think I have a fair record of support for the IPP myself.
As far as I know, Mark does not denigrate the IPP. In fact I've seen him castigate another colleague for not supporting IPPs!

As far as I can see, where we disagree is in the method by which we can change the profession in the UK. I don't think the HPC will accept change or allow change. However there may be a loophole or two in political terms which Mark is exploring. You are corect in saying that Govt won't want to change things too. But come an election, things start to move, and if the govt could be persuaded that the HPC (better still, if the opposition could be persuaded!!) is a bad thing, "but look - here is how it could all work out" - we could be in with a chance.
Cheers,
David

 

Political Developments.

Hi Derek,
Nice to hear a bit of realism! With due respect to others using this site a touch of acceptance of the present reality is like a breath of fresh air. I cannot see the other side of the argument making any progress at all in this political climate can you? Crying over spilt milk maybe? An almost paranoid chasing after the unobtainable perhaps?
But maybe we should be pursuing cures for verruca! After all no ones possibly found one for the past five thousand years, except me of course! Must keep a sense of humour everybody or the little men in white coats may suddenly appear on the horizon, and I don't mean SCP members, or do I???
Regards,
Colin.

 

Hi Colin

I think in any closed forum it is very easy to lose sight of the reality of the world outside and persue personal goals and ideals .

That is not always a bad thing because passions run high and feelings are expressed with vigour , that is what makes a good discussion forum.

When the "fun " goes out of it and we take ourselves TOO seriously ??

Perhaps that is the time for reality to bring us all back down to earth.

I said it before

My philosophy , Lighten up and Get a Life to enjoy .

agreed ??

Regards

Derek

 

Westminster Health Questions 22/3/2005

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): What assessment he has made of access to chiropody services for senior citizens. [223083]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It is for local primary care trusts to assess and determine local priorities for access to chiropody. The 2004 figures, published today, show that there are now 3,941 chiropodists working in the national health service, a 20 per cent. increase on 1997.

Mr. Forth: That sounds good, but it is a complacent answer. Why did the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists say recently that elderly patients are being bumped off waiting lists? Is not this another example of the Government trying to make everybody believe that things are a lot better when, in reality, our vulnerable elderly citizens are suffering what can be a painful and difficult condition? Will the Under-Secretary look again at the figures that he has been given and get real?

Dr. Ladyman: I do not believe that the society said any such thing. There has been a substantial increase in the number of chiropodists in the NHS. However, PCTs are focusing them on people with specialist needs that require a specialist podiatrist and chiropodist. Increasingly, PCTs are providing simpler and routine services such as nail cutting through other measures not included in the figures that we count. In fact, the total number of people who get access to all forms of NHS chiropody is substantially higher now than ever before.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Is not the National Pensioners Convention right to call for an annual free comprehensive health check for pensioners, as such checks often pick up conditions that would otherwise worsen over the ensuing years? Is not that particularly the case in terms of podiatry and a condition such as diabetes, which often has symptoms that a podiatrist can help to alleviate?

Dr. Ladyman My hon. Friend is right. We need to look closely at what we can do to prevent older people from becoming sick. As part of the new contract, GPs will have additional responsibilities to ensure that they do that with their patients. We have announced plans in the national service framework for older people and in other measures to ensure that we move the NHS from the sickness service it has been traditionally to a genuine health service. My hon. Friend is right and, in order to do that, we must ensure that the health care needs of older people are being met on a preventive basis, which is what we are trying to do.

Mr. John Baron (Billericay) (Con): The Under-Secretary will be aware that, on many previous occasions, we have raised our concerns that many elderly people are being denied essential NHS foot care, but the Government continue to be in denial, as illustrated by the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). May I raise the case of an 82-year-old lady—I can supply full details afterwards—who is partially sighted, almost deaf, suffers from angina and emphysema, has suffered three strokes and is unable to bend to attend to her feet? She has been told that she no longer qualifies for NHS care for her feet and has been forced to go private, something she may not be able to afford in future. As this is a far cry from an isolated example, will the Under-Secretary now accept that there is a real problem here and that, in a target-driven culture, any NHS services not targeted are suffering? What is he going to do to put the situation right?

Dr. Ladyman: That is typical of recent announcements from the Conservative party. It is based on one case from more than 2 million people who are receiving chiropody. If the hon. Gentleman really wanted me to explore that lady's case he would have told me about it before asking his question so that I could have looked into it. On the face of it, that lady should have access to specialist care and the hon. Gentleman obviously does not care about her as much as the NHS does. Let me make it absolutely clear that primary care trusts have a responsibility to ensure that people who need the specialist service of a chiropodist receive it. That is what is happening, but that does not mean that they should be going to specialist podiatrists for simple services such as nail cutting.

 

Government Review into Healthcare Regulation

A new review into the regulation of a broad range of healthcare professions will consider changes to the measures dentists, pharmacists, nurses and other health professionals undergo to check they remain fit to do their jobs. The review, announced today by Secretary of State John Reid, is a further move to help protect the health and well-being of patients.

The Department of Health has already announced that the Chief Medical Officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, will carry out a review of the revalidation of doctors and related matters, following concerns expressed by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Report from the Shipman Inquiry.

Today's review, which starts immediately, will cover dentists, pharmacists, nursing and midwifery, opticians, osteopaths and chiropractors, as well as the 13 professions covered by the Health Professions Council (HPC). Over 800,000 NHS and private sector staff are regulated in these professions. The review will also consider implications for other health care staff.

Regulation today involves making it an offence to call yourself a member of the profession unless you are registered. The regulator sets standards for entry and conduct, and also removes individuals from the register where they fall short of the standard.

John Reid said:
"Patients rely on a team of health professionals during their care, not just doctors. Ensuring there are proper measures to test doctors' fitness to practise is only one part of assuring the safety of patients. Many lessons emerging from the Chief Medical Officer's review of revalidation and the role of the GMC will have implications for the regulation of other healthcare professions and vice versa."

"This new review will complement the work being undertaken by the Chief Medical Officer. It will help enable us to put in place comprehensive and consistent measures to ensure all professionals treating patients remain fit to practise."

The review will consider and advise Ministers about the measures needed to:
* strengthen procedures for ensuring that the performance or conduct of non-medical health professionals and other health care staff does not pose a threat to patient safety or the effective functioning of services, particularly focusing on the effective and fair operation of fitness to practise procedures;
* ensure the operation of effective systems of continuing professional development and appraisal for non-medical health care staff and make progress towards regular revalidation where appropriate;
* ensure the effective regulation of health care staff working in new roles within the healthcare sector and of other staff in regular contact with patients

In addition, the review will consider whether any changes are needed to the role, structure, functions and number of regulators of non-medical healthcare professional staff.

There will be an advisory group, which will include experts from non-medical regulators and from the NHS. A larger reference group, which will include education and training bodies, professional organisations, and consumer and healthcare interest groups, will contribute to the review's findings.

The review will report by the end of 2005 and will inform the department's plans to improve patient protection

 

HP Sauce

British Psychological Society rejects HPC regulation proposals

Organisation Press Release


Summary
The British Psychological Society today rejected the Department of Health's proposal that the Health Professions Council should take responsibility for the statutory regulation of psychologists, who offer services to the public.

Dr Graham Powell, BPS president commented: 'We are not convinced that the Health Professions Council has the systems in place to equal or enhance our procedures.'



Society rejects proposal for statutory regulation
The British Psychological Society has today, 9 June 2005, rejected the Department of Health's proposal that the Health Professions Council should take responsibility for the statutory regulation of psychologists, who offer services to the public.

The Society's response to the Government 's consultation makes it clear that we are committed to the principle of statutory regulation, but we have serious concerns about the proposed way of doing this, said Dr Graham Powell, President of the British Psychological Society. He continued: We already have well established and highly respected systems of regulation. These include the determination of applicants' suitability to practise in applied areas of psychology; the accreditation of 115 programmes of professional training; and, a rigorous investigatory and disciplinary system which, perhaps uniquely, has a majority of non-psychologists at all stages of decision-making. We are not convinced that the Health Professions Council has the systems in place to equal or enhance our procedures.

The Society regards statutory regulation as being essential to enhance public protection. This is because it is not a statutory requirement that psychologists who offer services to the public are on the Society's existing Register. Nor can a removal from the Register automatically stop a person from practising.

The intention to introduce a statutory system to strengthen the Society's current non-statutory system is therefore welcomed, but the Society has expressed significant doubts as to whether the Government's proposals for regulating applied psychology through the Health Professions Council would achieve this objective in all areas. (A bullet point summary of the Society's main concerns is attached).

Of particular concern to the Society's members, who have contributed to the response, was that they provide a wide range of services across many different fields and that the degree to which their practice is concerned with ?~health ?T varies substantially. In addition the membership raised a number of concerns related to the fact that, unlike typical health professions, the discipline includes a substantial number of academics/researchers who do not offer services to the public.

The full draft response to the Department of Health Consultation Applied Psychology. Enhancing Public Protection: Proposals for the Statutory Regulation of Applied psychologists is available online at the British Psychological Society's web site, www.bps.org.uk


Summary of The British Psychological Society's main concerns in response to the Department of Health's public consultation document on the Statutory Regulation of applied psychologists: The HPC was not designed for and has no familiarity with regulating a profession of the breadth of psychology, covering at least 7 different fields of practice.

The HPC has no experience of regulating professionals outside of health settings, and several of the Divisions have very little to do with health, and future Divisions might have nothing to do with health.

The HPC has no experience of regulating a profession based at least 3 years postgraduate qualifications, creating a risk of lower standards.

The standards of proficiency are written at a very general level and do not validly reflect the proficiencies required within each field of psychology practice.

The HPC does not agree that the highest level of English language proficiency is required to practise psychology, whereas such proficiency should be seen as a prerequisite for talking therapies.

The HPC have not guaranteed that the criteria for grandparenting will match current entry standards.

The HPC have no experience of assessing non-standard entry (eg overseas candidates) into a profession of the breath of psychology, and their suggestion that this could be done by just two assessors, or even one, is not viable.

The HPC system for accrediting courses seems less rigorous than the current BPS system, hence a danger that standards will be lowered.

Conflict could arise if HPC and the BPS disagree over a decision on course accreditation, and no system has been proposed for managing this conflict.

There is significant lack of detail about requirements for continuing professional development, and no guarantee that they will match our own.

The Department of Health consultation document lacks detail regarding the HPC process of investigating complaints.

The HPC code of conduct is not as rigorous as the BPS code, eg in relation to interpersonal behaviour.

The HPC system of investigating complaints is less expert and less rigorous than the current BPS system, with only one expert opinion required when our experience is that given the breadth of psychology one needs a committee drawn from a range of backgrounds and if necessary a specialist panel.

The medical information about registrants published on the HPC website seems to the Society to be a breach of basic rights and natural justice.

The proposed legislation assumes that the BPS register will close, which it will not.

There are errors in the Department of Health cost benefit analysis, for example it cost the BPS £1800 to investigate a case, not the £7,000 stated.

The HPC seems to marginalise the professional body and not to guarantee routes that will draw upon the Society's expertise and experience, which obstructs the Society in fulfilling its obligations under the Royal Charter to advance psychology and promote efficiency.

The current proposal does not allow those undertaking professional training to be regulated, whereas the Society currently manages this quite simply by allowing conditional registration.

The current proposal does not allow for protection of the title 'clinical neuropsychologist'.

The current proposal assumes that all psychologists currently regulated by the BPS will transfer to the statutory register, but the proposal is only to regulate 7 titles, so none of those who have chartered status but do not hold one of these titles can be regulated by HPC.

We welcome the clear statement that there is no intent to regulate academic or research psychologists, but there is no route for an academic or research psychologist to be regulated by HPC should they wish to be so.

It is essential for the practice of psychology that the core discipline is not adversely affected in its development and growth but the current proposal could disadvantage applied researchers.

The Department of Health document is confusing about which teachers on professional training courses need to be registered, and this has potential for undermining the teaching strength of courses.

As a result of our serious concerns, we have asked the Department of Health and the Government to think again as to whether there should be a regulatory body specifically for psychology, reporting to the new Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence as the overarching body. If the Government continues to insist upon regulation by HPC then the above list of concerns indicates the ways in which the HPC proposal will have to be developed and improved in order to be fit for purpose. We expect to engage with the Department of Health in discussion following their consideration of the response from the Society.

 

Hi Mark

May I have your permission to post this report/summary to some psychology graduates I know?

Cheers

David

 

I have no problem with that David, but I suspect they already have it as it was circulated to all members of the BPS - see the info on the website.

Mark

 

Psychologist compared to Podiatrist!

Hi All.

A BRIEF COMPARISON OF THE ABOVE WITH US!


1. PSYCHOLOGISTS of their Society,

United with 115 program's of professional training.

1. PODIATRISTS of their Society,

Nine, give or take a few training programs, (Granted they are at degree level!).



2. BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY - BPS.

Self regulating from the sixties/seventies, (I took a module with the O.U. when it started so I know a little bit about it's development!).

2. THE PODIATRISTS' SOCIETY - PS.

Self regulating but ignoring the rest! Not even talking to the rest of us, or am I mistaken?



3. BPS. - Recruiting like mad from the beginning of the 1960/70's.

40,000 or more members to-date! Plus a Royal Charter!

3. PS. - An apparent slow recruitment mainly influenced by the output of the few University Schools turning new one's out!

Less than 9,000?



4. BPS. - Compelling the HPC and Dept. of Health, DH., to talk to them!!!

4. PS. and the other Camps arguing among themselves.

The HPC. eventually went away and did it, saying, "Now this is what is going to happen?" (Rumour or fact, what do you think?).


5. BPS. - Arguing strongly over their training!

5. Podiatry. - A whole tradition of non-degree courses dust-binned by the HPC. (It will be interesting to see whether the same thing happens in Psychology?).



CONCLUSIONS:-
1. Psychology is strong in numbers and united in it's views presented to the HPC.!
2. Podiatry is weak in numbers and disunited in its views presented to the HPC!
3. The HPC. is united in it's views under it's own structure! (It knows what it should be about, and is about it!).


QUESTION:- Is the above an accurate picture of the immediate past?
(I would love someone to prove me wrong, we are back to a depressing picture of the past five years again I fear?).

Regards,

Colin.

P.S. Forgive me for dragging this up again, but reading some of the comment above I fear that to the bitter end the 'Grandfathers' amongst us are going to be under attack!?! (Dangers of the pathological' perhaps?).

 

Scottish Parliament - Regulation of Health Professionals

Colleagues may be interested to know that the Scottish Parlaiment Petitions Committee will be reconvening on 28 June 2005 where they will be considering the progress of the petition on regulation of health professionals. Specifically, the committee will consider the response from the HPC and the Health Minister over our concerns on grandparenting and standards in podiatry. They will also consider the above in relation to the recent statement from the BPS regarding proposed regulation.

The committee hearing starts at 10am and will be broadcast live over the internet.

Mark Russell

 

Unexpected delay?

Hi Mark,

What happened on the 28-6-05?

It is strangely quiet! Have they all gone on holiday?

Regards,

Colin.

 

The Public Petitions Committee considered written evidence from the Health Minister, Andy Kerr, and from Marc Seale, Chief Executive of the HPC. Their submissions can be read on pages 90-99 of the papers relating to the hearing, which can be found at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/petitions/papers-05/pup05-12.pdf

After considering the written evidence the committee agreed to seek a response from myself (as the petitioner) and the British Psychological Society who recently rejected proposals for regulation by the HPC. The committee will sit again in September 2005.

 

Written Evidence!

Hi Mark or Admin.,

Sorry to bother you but I would like to know what Marc Seale and the others wrote in their written evidence if it is in the public domain?

I tried the Scottish Parliament Website and got an 'Intruder Alarm Warning,' shutting me down? The McAfee Firewall wasn't accompanied by Bagpipes either!

Is it possible to get to pages 90-99 or can either of you put them up here to read? I would be most obliged if you could!!!

Regards,

Colin.

PS. It may have been a coincidence with the Website but I don't want to try again!

 

Good morning Colin

The submissions by the HPC and the Health Minister are fairly lengthy and detailed. Unfortunately they have been uploaded onto the site in original form and are now in pdf format which I cannot copy. They would take some time to retype and I'm not prepared to do that, I'm afraid.

I also run McAfee and have no security issues when visiting the site so I suspect your warning message was coincidental. If you are still concerned may I suggest you access via your local library or internet cafe instead?

Regards

Mark

 

Hi All!

Well, I've read all the stuff on the previously mentioned website, and sadly I can't cut and paste it either...

However, I thought it interesting in Marc Searle's reply that Mark had not provided specific evidence of the grandparenting process being lax.

So what evidence will you be sending to support your claims, Mark?

Cheers,

Robin.

 

Websites addresses?

Hi Robin,

An interesting question reference Marc Seale' comments!

Nearly went down the sink again with pfd. etc.?

For anyone interested in the papers we are referring to I would try the following with thanks from our friends at Google!!!

1. http ://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ business/committees/petitions/papers-05/1 You will have to type these address' to get there. Remove the space between http and ://

2. http ://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ business/committees/petitions/papers-05/pup05-12pdf

3. The relevant pages are found for printing at Pages 90 to 99 inclusive! This refers to Petition PE802.

Regards,

Colin.

PS. Sorry folks, it worked for me but now there is a security warning on the entry page. "You are not authorized!" Typical Scotsmen, I won't involve the Ladies!

 

Robin

For the record, Marc Seale did not write to me regarding the submission of my petition to the Scottish Parliament. His letter was in response to a question I raised at a 'listening event' in Blackpool where I asked if he had any knowledge of the rumour that a stuffed monkey had gained registration through Route A of the grandparenting process. He was seeking clarification as to whether I had any further information that could assist them in investigating this further - which I did not.

When I give evidence in September to the committe in September I shall detail specific cases where the grandparenting process has failed to ensure that standards of proficiency have been met and by implication, public safety compromised, in favour of corporate expediency.

Regards

Mark Russell

 

Hi Mark!

Thanks for the reply.

The HPC will certainly want to see real evidence of such claims in order for them to take appropriate action.

I wonder if someone in the registration dept got out all our photos to see who looked the most monkeyish???

I really am suprised about the numbers of eligable route A or B candidates who did not bother to apply for grandparenting.

Cheers,

Robin.

PS. I'm not trying to be clever in saying this but I'm wondering is it not your duty as an HPC registrant to inform them of your evidence now, so that it can be investigated sooner rather than later so as to protect the public?

I refer to:
"You must, at all times, act to protect the interests of patients, clients, users, carers and other members of the public. You must try to provide the best possible care, either alone or with other health and social-care professions. You must not do anything, or allow anything to be done, that you have good reason to believe will put the health or safety of a patient, client or user in danger. This includes both your own actions and those of others.

When working in a team you are still responsible for your professional conduct, any care or professional advice you provide, any failure to act and any tasks you ask someone else to carry out. You must protect patients if you believe that they are threatened by a colleague’s conduct, performance or health. The safety of patients, clients and users must come before any personal and professional loyalties at all times. As soon as you become aware of any situation that puts a patient, client or user at risk, you should discuss the matter with a senior professional colleague. If you feel that you cannot raise the matter with a senior colleague, you can contact our Registrar."

Taken from: http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/1000062EStandards_of_conduct_performance_and_ethics.txt