Receipts for insurance claims

Oh...there's me thinking it would make life easier! A local clinic I used to work in calls itself 'State Registered Chiropodists'...although all three practitioners are in fact HPC-registered podiatrists, and have never been either chiropodists, nor 'state-registered' (rather like myself). They used to put SRCh on my receipts which irritated me greatly...and sometimes even DPodM (I don't even know what that is!).

Up until the other day, I thought BSc (Hons) and an HPC number was all I needed to practise with impunity.

 

Victoria.

You are making this very difficult.

If the three practitioners you refer to qualified prior to the start of the HPC (2005 I think), then they were State Registered, if they were registered at all. Therefore although the term is now obsolete they are not truly misrepresenting themselves. I think it a trading standards issue, they work with the HPC over this stuff. I did have cause to complain to the HPC over a previously non registered Registrant adopting the letters SRCh, which eventually the HPC took up.

So if you were never SRCh I would not use the letters.

As far as never being a chiropodist, please check your HPC registration certificate, they say you are.

DPodM, (Diploma in Podiatric Medicine) was the qualification before BSc which was before BSc (hons). It is much prized by those in the profession who came before you, and my advice is to issue a public apology before the wrath of the elders descends on you

Once DPodM was abandoned by the College of Further education or perhaps when the schools of Pod came under Universities, I believe it was adopted by SMAE to indicate those of it's members who had done all their advanced training.

Hopefully this is helpful to you?

The HPC originally discouraged any one from mentioning 'Registered', as the theory was that protection of Title was enough to make the general public understand the 'quality' of the person at their foot.

I think it was a year before they understood the errors of their ways and there is now even a HPC logo you can use.

What a useless bunch, and their overlords too. Just my opinion.

Up until the other day, I thought BSc (Hons) and an HPC number was all I needed to practise with impunity.[/

It is.

Bob

 

Apologies for making things difficult for the folks on here

Thanks to all who have posted in response to my questions. I'd best leave it there.

 

Victoria

I did not mean to put you off asking questions, how else can we all learn.

None of this stuff is taught at Uni, please come back.

Bob

 

Sorry, Bob...didn't mean to flounce! It's just that you are indeed right...at no point during my degree was I ever referred to as a chiropodist, nor was chiropody ever explicitly mentioned as a term. So to find that I am one, has thrown me.

I do feel like a numpty for asking such basic stuff. A quick poll amongst my colleagues reveals similar misunderstandings...one who only graduated in 2006 in fact uses the words DPodM and SRCh after her name, and doesn't even bother with the BSc at all

I know it's tiresome to have these endless questions posted on here, some of which are OT, but it has been helpful...for myself and for I'm sure for umpteen lurkers.

So thanks again for your detailed responses. I will be dealing with the insurance company in question next week, and this has armed me with the right information to state my case.

 

No R.E.G. I cannot let you get away with your statement:

"I would not have called it an intended option, but a loophole that has been exploited".

What you would not have called it is irrelevant. It was one of three options - set out in the manner that was indicated. No loophole and nobody has 'slipped through'.

Many of those eligible to join the register chose not to do so. There used to be something called democracy in Britain. Some chose to exercise their democratic right not to join the register, despite having their title taken from them.

State regisration is now defunct. Its use is meaningless and all reference to state registration should have been removed from literature and websites long since. Persisting in the use of the title can be construed as an intention to mislead the public.

 

John?

I will not add the pod bit as it would now appear you are not entitled to use that title.

Those that chose not to register, despite being eligible, and for what ever reason, 'democracy', fear of failure, refusal to be monitored, are just one group of the now titled FHPs.

The previously unregistered fought for decades to have the right to be registered, then when that was given to the, (because of Human Rights legislation) people like you threw it back in the authorities face.

The loophole I refer to was the ability to continue training 'foot people' who could not be regulated, thus the failure of the legislation to 'close the profession'. (At least Scholl and the Institute pulled out of training.)

Look now at the proliferation of private trainers who advertise on this site legally because it is a site for 'communication between foot health professionals'!

I agree that State R is now defunct, and I do not think I have advocated it's continued use, however it is a title that represented a standard for a long time and will take a while to be replaced by 'Title'. In the mean time it does not 'mislead' the public unlike most of the advertising used by FHPs.

I stand by my statement.

While I fully support people's right to democracy, democracy also has obligations. If I make racist comments, I will be punished, while the law cannot control my thoughts it can and should control my actions. That is democracy FHPs are anarchy.

So come on then what are your qualifications? I'm going to guess West Midland School. Am I right?

Bob
BSc (hons) Podiatry.

 

R.E.G.

I am appalled by your rudeness and your entrenched attitudes and here invite the site administrators to censure your posting. Your post is intended to be personal, personally damaging, is against the Forum rules and against the spirit of this forum.

How dare you make any such asumptions....

I am a podiatrist just like yourself, and have a degree and am HPC registered.

The difference between us is that I probably hold fewer prejudices and are more able to accept the mess that I have to live in thanks to inept and self-promoting SCP advice to CPSM/HPC. I am certainly a better historian.

 

Johnpod,

I apologise for my assumption clearly I misread your statement, you were talking about 'others', not yourself.

However I retract nothing else.

My attitudes are not entrenched.

Clearly you hold fewer prejudices except your obvious distaste of the SCP.

Your like most historians version of history is clouded by your beliefs, as I accept are mine.

However acceptance of 'the mess' your words not mine is rather defeatist? What would your solution be?

If my post is to be censored so be it, however I am prepared to defend my post, at least I have declared my name. As you go by a pseudonym how can I cause you personel damage?

Bob Golding

 

R.E.G.

I accept your apology and offer a metaphorical handshake. This is probably as close as I shall ever get to the Society since they have steadfastly refused real communication with fellow workers in the industry.

Correct terminology is important to this case so that all readers understand exactly what is meant.

Flawed legislation and all the frustration that goes with it does not make FHP training illegal. Why do you think option 3 was written in to the Health Bill? If it is not against the law it is legal, like it or not. Properly done, it is as safe as anything you do. Insurers have no difficulty with offering premiums because there is now a five year history of no claims. That means that FHPs must be considered to be safe, scalpel and all.

All that is protected is two titles - nothing else. The occupation can be legally followed by anyone and they are entitled to pursue the occupation under any title they choose so long as it is not a reserved title.

quote:"The previously unregistered fought for decades to have the right to be registered, then when that was given to the, (because of Human Rights legislation) people like you threw it back in the authorities face".

The fact is that the Steering Group was ill-formatted and what emerged was not what 50% of the previously unregistered wanted. Had the Dept of Health genuinely consulted the workers and heeded the recommendations of the JM Consulting Report, things might have been different. In fact, what was actually offered was akin to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I know because I was there!

You must not be too hard on previously unregistered practitioners who chose not to join the register. In real terms there was no gain whatever but to be allowed to keep the title that had been previously won by examination, paying well for a chiropody course leading to a chiropody diploma through a school of chiropody. The registration fee, complexity of the forms, and being told what you are allowed to do after years of freedom was too heavy a price to pay for some for retention of the right to use one generic word. Little wonder that they exercised their democratic rights. In fact, it could be said that their rightful title was stolen from them. Why would podiatrists need two titles? The only possible reason is that podiatrists could not have existed without the 'chiropody' word because it would not have been recognised by the public.

So, there we have it. One group of workers with two titles, and another group of workers bereft of a title but entitled to work. Flawed legislation? I think so!

And who was chairing the steering group, advising the Dept of Health, sitting on the Chiropody Board, populating the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine?

That's right! The Society!

Bob...I try to respect your point of view. But you must allow other points of view from different viewpoints. As a senior (lecturing) pod I have seen a lot of water under the bridge. The water does not always flow clean.

 

Johnpod,

Thank you for accepting my apology, I pride myself on raising my hand when I make mistakes.

I am not really as entrenched as you believe. However as I do not know who you are or who you are associated with or lecture to I find it difficult to continue.

You say

Flawed legislation and all the frustration that goes with it does not make FHP training illegal. Why do you think option 3 was written in to the Health Bill? If it is not against the law it is legal, like it or not. Properly done, it is as safe as anything you do.
I never said private training was illegal. The point you make is salient 'properly done'. Unfortunately there is no control over that.

There appears to be an ever growing number of private trainers with different costs and course lengths all producing 'registrable' FHPs, try the BSY as advertised on this site.

You describe the situation now as a 'mess'. I agree.

My solution is simplistic, close the profession, protection of function.

What is yours?

Bob Golding.

 

Hi All

Well help me out on this one Posted by Michael O`Neill who I assume is of the SCP hierarchy :-

Enlighten us please what is and how does one aspire to this " consultant" status????

This would not be a ploy to divide and separate again from within would it ??

Just a thought

Cheers
Derek

 

Derek

No idea mate, about the podiatric surgeon bit, I think you are correct about the name but 'SCP hierachy' is a strange concept. I think 'consultant' status has been explained many times, it is not my role to explain. Taking snippets out of context is not your usual style. What are you trying to say?

Trust me I'm a simple chiropodist who once supported the SCP opening it's doors to the HPC registered in an attempt to unite the registered profession.

I seem to remember that is what you wanted.

Did you join?

Bob

 

PHP:

Enlighten us please what is and how does one aspire to this " consultant" status????

This would not be a ploy to divide and separate again from within would it ??

This is what exactly now happing within podiatry. We have a group who thinks/act superior to General Pods the Podiatric Surgeons / Consultant group. The SCP hierarchy are made of too many Pod Surgeons, dictating what procedures we can & can not provide and keeping the titles for themselves..

The SCP should negotiate and have a dialogue with the insurance companies to cover all the Pods, not only those who are surgeons/consultant. It’s time we vote with our feet! We pay the SCP membership fee too.

June

 

Really? I would dispute your statement. Podiatric Surgeons/Consultant Group would not exist without the General Pods.

.

This could be changed. The power of the General Pods could be motivated? Yes?

Not on your nellie mate. Have you seen how much these insurance companies pay? Stay independent unless you want to work for peanuts.

GB

 

Hi derek et al

I like your last point- never once has the requirement to become registered with the HPC involved practical skills- and from the sound of the upcoming audit for Pods in 2008, it will still remain unchecked.

You can do all the CPD in the world but it does NOT change your clinical skills. I am amazed to hear that there is a published guide to scalpel technique- I didnt realise it was something you could learn from a book!

Heather

 

sorry guys
that last post is way behind the times and out of sync- i didnt get to page 2 on this thread before i posted!

heather

 

Bob
Hi Buddy

NO NOT " podiatric surgeon" , CONSULTANT PODIATRIST"

From your position on the SCP can you find out / explain please ???

Just think there is " the old guard" trying to make elitism from within" so all those that joined are yet again second class citizens ??

AND I STILL DO PASSIONATELY

No got all the forms filled out then "family" got involved

Skype me when you have time

Cheers
Derek

 

Hi Heather

Try and keep up

Just cooked our BBQ gonna eat to give you time to reflect

Be Lucky

Derek

 

Hi all.

This discussion no longer has any relevance to the thread title, so I'm out.

Should anyone want to examine any of the issues we have discussed then start a new tread, and I will enjoy debating.

Bob Golding

 

Hi Bob

Will do

Consultant podiatrist

Cheers
Derek