Political Developments

Hi Robin

With that in mind and now "we are all one" in the eyes of the HPC

Does anyone know how many registered chiropodist/podiatrists there are now in the uk ????

Cheers

Derek

 

Objectives of the HPC.

Hi Robin, Mark and others,

Possibly of interest,

OBJECTIVES OF THE HPC - FROM BRIEFING NOTE.

Article 3(4) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (HPC) states:

"The main objective of the Council in exercising its function shall be to safeguard the health and well-being of persons using or needing the services of registrants."

The following statement from the petition is therefore not correct:

"The primary objective of the HPC is to secure effective regulation of all practitioners who practice in their respective fields under the banner of the protected title."
[Briefing Note].

NB. Note and quote below from Marc Seale (Chief Executive and Registrar), in letter to Petitions Committee,

Quote:"Please note that the letter and Briefing Note are not confidential and can be made public."

Regards,

Colin.

PS. Mark, the letter and Briefing Note, tear holes in the accuracy of the Petition, Not having read it, is this correct?

1. Quote:-"The number is 13 , not 12 as stated in the Petition." {Acceptable Mark, as time has gone by, but HPC are being asked to comment on something a little more than just something to be debated}?

2. Pays to check the Statuary Instrument (SI) referenced as I know to my cost on occasion, (SI. is number 254 not 2 as stated in the Petition!)?

3. Was the monkey/gorilla yet another smoke screen? I thought Marc would pick up on it as his team of legal beagles worked through this Petition lodged as the Scottish Parliament, did you not put the Petition through Counsel for their opinion?

Regards,

Colin.

 

Robin

Thank you for your advice but my complaint is directed at the regulator of whom I have little confidence in addressing its own shortfalls. That is why I took this issue to Parliament and I am bound by their process at this point in time.

Regards

Mark

 

Hi Mark

I think Robin does have a point , your opinion of the HPC as a regulatory body is a side issue to the fact you are a registered member of that body and therefore bound by its rules and regulations as we all now are.

I believe you now MUST give your evidence to the HPC as you obviously have information that if not acted upon will be detrimental to the health and safety of the public.

Cheers

Derek

 

Patience is a virtue Derek, that is seldom found in women and never (it would appear) in grandparented clincians! You'll just have to wait, I'm afraid.

 

Ahh Mark

Yes I will await with interest but must ponder how you can reconcile your delay in disclosure to your expounded "public protection" moral obligations.

 

NHS Podiatry Services - Early Day Motion

The following EDM will shortly be lodged in Westminster in relation to NHS Podiatry Services:


EDM 1195
ELDERLY PATIENTS’ ACCESS TO NHS PODIATRY SERVICES
Mr Andrew Lansley (Shadow Minister for Health)
That this House expresses concern about the difficulties facing many NHS podiatry services and the plight of many elderly patients whose need for basic podiatry care is not being met; notes a survey of NHS podiatry service managers carried out by the Conservative Party, which shows that 83% of services have found demand outstripping resources during the last five years, the majority requiring an average 28% increase in staff to meet demand, and that 55% have raised the level of need for access to care, which has the effect of discharging some patients who would previously have been entitled to care; further notes Help the Aged’s recent report entitled ‘Best Foot Forward’, which concluded that a quarter of elderly patients with a need for podiatry care are not receiving it; is concerned that many elderly patients are being forced to pay for basic podiatry services in the private sector; and calls on the Government to establish a review of podiatry services and patients’ needs as an essential first step to assess the scale of the problem and to address the problem.

Regards

Mark Russell

 

Hi Mark and all interested parties,

Coming back to the "evidence of grandparented not being properly scrutinised",
I have heard several stories now of how some individual granparented were all too carefully, some might say maliciously, scrutinised prior to their being granted HPC-registration. I know one case personally.

Contrast this with the chap who evidently quite cheerfully told a certain, recent conference (from the front row) that he found the registration process easy, all the more so since he made up his case histories!
A brave thing to do considering Marc Seale was hovering nearby.

I think it's fair to say there was little consistency in the scrutineering of some cases.

Regards,
davidh

 

Dave

That is part of the problem The process lacked consistency throughout, and whilst I fully accept that many of the grand-parented practitioners practise at a safe and competent level, the application process - with self-decalration - was always open to abuse. From the Fitness to Practise hearings on the HPC website, I note two grand-parented practitioners have been removed from the register since July this year for supplying information on their applications that did not meet the necessary criteria. My point is simply this: what mechanisms are in place to check the veracity of information supplied by applicants? The answer is none. The HPC are relying on offences being reported to them - a process that is retrospective and reactive - rather than proactive - and I fear this may have serious consequences for the profession and public alike in the months and years to come.

Best wishes
Mark

 

Regulation of Health Professionals (Scotland)

Current papers on the progress of the SCottish Parliament Petition. PE802 is the second item.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/petitions/papers-06/pup06-04-current2.pdf

 

Public Petitions Committee Official Report 22 February 2006

Health Professionals (Regulation) (PE802)

The Convener: Our next petition is PE802, by Mark Russell, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to express its deep concern that, despite health being a devolved matter, the regulation of health professionals has been reserved to the Westminster Parliament.

At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner and the British Psychological Society. Responses have been received, so I would be happy to hear members' views on what we should do with the petition now. Is there anything that we can do, given the petitioner's view?

Helen Eadie: Given that the minister has responded, saying that he does not

"consider devolution of professional regulation to be a major issue concerning the quality of health services in Scotland",

there is not much more that we can do.

John Scott: I wonder whether that is indeed the case, because there seems to have been a variety of responses from the different organisations that have been contacted, some of which take a different view from the minister and say that the matter is worthy of further debate. I am not sure how we would progress the matter, because the minister has already responded. We might want to pass the petition to the Health Committee to make it aware that there are other views on the matter than those of the minister.

Jackie Baillie: What struck me about the responses was that everybody wants to ensure the highest possible professional standards. The debate should not be about whether that is done at Westminster or at the Scottish Parliament, but about the substance of the matter, which is how we raise those standards. Therefore, instead of focusing on whether the matter is dealt with here or there, we might be better served by passing the petition on, although I do not know to whom. The point about raising standards does not concern the Scottish ministers, so I support Helen Eadie's view that we should close the petition. I do not know whether we can send it elsewhere for information on the general point about standards.

The Convener: We could send the petition to the Health Committee for information but not ask it to do anything with it. Perhaps we could send it to our colleagues at Whitehall.

Helen Eadie: I was going to suggest that. People tend to forget that they have Westminster parliamentarians. We ought to remind them that they should work with the Westminster Parliament or the Scottish Parliament as appropriate. You are right to say that we should ensure that the petition goes to our Whitehall colleagues, because we cannot deal with the concerns as part of our work.

The Convener: The petition would be sent just for information.

Jackie Baillie: I had forgotten who Mr Russell was, but I now recollect that he lives in Lytham St Anne's. In advising him that we are closing the petition, we could suggest that the profitable route for dealing with standards would be to consult his local MP.

The Convener: That might be a better suggestion. Are members happy to do that?

John Scott: Although we are to close the petition, should we pass a copy of it to the Health Committee, because of the diverging views?

The Convener: It will just be for information, because of the issues that have been raised.

Are members happy with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

 

Hi Mark
Breaking a self rule here, promised myself never to post again.

Just goes to show Scottish or English our so called politicians are an absolute waste of space.

Look after yourself Mark

Cheers
Derek