Podiatry assistants / assistant podiatrists course?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I attached the following document for discussion.
regards
Dido
Sorry Admin I am having problems uploading this file.
I think I have it now!

 

Re: Podiatry Practitioners Course - Durham University.

Many apols admin.
After I posted, I realised I had left someone's e-mail address on the document, so had to go back and edit it. It's fine now.
regards
Dido

 

Re: Podiatry Practitioners Course - Durham University.

I think something needs to be made absolutely clear here - DURHAM UNIVERSITY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DURHAM SCHOOL OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE, WHO ARE PART OF NEW COLLEGE DURHAM. Sorry to shout about this, and I'm sure it has been a genuine misunderstanding, but please try not to confuse the two institutions - would it be possible to edit this thread as Durham Uni won't be very happy to see it is being associated with something like this?

 

Re: Podiatry Practitioners Course - Durham University.

Hi,
Thanks for pointing this out. I've emailed Admin who I'm sure will set things straight.

Back to topic - has anyone else noticed that the proposed Podiatry Practitioner Course is going to be turning out, not Podiatry Assistants, but Assistant Podiatrists (a very different beast).

Elsewhere someone has stated that they hope this is not going to turn into SCP-bashing, and I agree. This is much too serious a topic for SCP-members, and UK Pods generally (to be turned into an SCP-bashing exercise). I think it was the same person (he/she posted as an anon, so you probably know which UK Pod forum this was on:dizzy who pointed out that the (SCP) case would be that much stronger if everyone were members of the SCP, which is of course arrant nonsense.

My personal view is that FHPs and other foothealth workers who are not degree-trained are not the Bete Noir of UK Podiatry after all, and in reality do not pose a threat to Podiatrists. However I concede that they may well pose a threat to those who work in PP in the immediate area of New College Durham.

Will the SCP be able to do anything about the proposed Course, and do they really, as they seem to claim, speak for the UK foothealth profession?

To the first I suggest not. A body whose own members (those lecturers at New College who are also SCP members) did not inform them about the proposed Course immediately, leaving them to find out about it at the same time as everyone else does not inspire confidence.
Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the SCP can do anything about the other Assistant Podiatrist Courses which will no doubt start springing up around the UK.

To the second, there are around 6000+ Podiatrists and FHPs who are not members of the SCP, and who, I strongly suspect, would not want the SCP speaking on their behalf anyway.

 

Re: Podiatry Practitioners Course - Durham School of Podiatric Medicine.

Dear jb3,
Thank you for bringing my attention to the mistake, for which I apologise. It was a genuine error. I have corrected the title of this post but I have been unable to edit the original post. I don't know if Admin will be able to help here?
regards
Dido.

 

Re: Podiatry Practitioners Course - Durham University.

Hi Dido,

i was sure it was a genuine mistake, folk always seem to assume that the podiatry school is part of Durham Uni, and it never has been (and I don't think it ever will!).

To return to topic, as David has, I do worry about the attitude that seems to be coming across from the SCP after having read the thread on the SCP site, it does appear to smack of a 'done deal'. However, I would imagine that not all the staff at the school were completely aware of the implications of the provision of such a course, and I also suspect that other influences were involved, such as the strategic health authority, who now hold the purse strings when it comes to AHP education. If the SHA says they want assistant practitioners, and the institution refuses to provide a course, then the SHA go elsewhere, and can take all their funding with them, including any funding for existing course, i.e. the pod degree.

I'm not defending new college durham / durham school of podiatry, as I think perhaps there has been some extreme naivety on their part - i hope that perhaps they will take note of the feeling within the profession as a whole, and find an escape route from their ivory tower.

JB3

 

Big Yawn.
Yet another Society-bashing post from David H, full of spin as usual.
Now we seem to have agreed on a title for this thread, perhaps we can create a more balanced view.

"Elsewhere someone has stated that they hope this is not going to turn into SCP-bashing, and I agree."

The why do just that?!


"This is much too serious a topic for SCP-members, and UK Pods generally."

WHAT ??

Would you prefer I posted on the New Zealand forum??

" I think it was the same person (he/she posted as an anon, so you probably know which UK Pod forum this was on:dizzy who pointed out that the (SCP) case would be that much stronger if everyone were members of the SCP, which is of course arrant nonsense."

David, you can go ahead and write TFS or even That Foot Site here, as this forum is only lightly moderated. (Unless of course you are timid of advertising for your competition.?

The person who posted was not anon but using an alias as so many that visit your site do.
The statement about Society membership makes perfect numerical sense.

"My personal view is that FHPs and other foothealth workers who are not degree-trained are not the Bete Noir " (careful - could be seen as a racist remark) "of UK Podiatry after all, and in reality do not pose a threat to Podiatrists. However I concede that they may well pose a threat to those who work in PP in the immediate area of New College Durham. "

Where is your reasoning behind this statement? Also, I am sure that all the Chiropodists who did a 3-year course without a degree, like yourself, will be reassured you don't think them a threat of any kind.

"Will the SCP be able to do anything about the proposed Course, and do they really, as they seem to claim, speak for the UK foothealth profession?"

Some Members of the Society are doing something, otherwise we would not have had the document to discuss. I don't recall that SCP ever claimed to speak for the whole UK footcare profession. they do however, speak for the majority of Chiropodists & Podiatrists, the greater number of which trained within a regulated environment.

"To the first I suggest not. A body whose own members (those lecturers at New College who are also SCP members) did not inform them about the proposed Course immediately, leaving them to find out about it at the same time as everyone else does not inspire confidence."

I think you assume too much. Not all lecturers are SCP Members. See erudite reply from bb3.

"Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the SCP can do anything about the other Assistant Podiatrist Courses which will no doubt start springing up around the UK."

So what is BChA doing?

"To the second, there are around 6000+ Podiatrists and FHPs who are not members of the SCP, and who, I strongly suspect, would not want the SCP speaking on their behalf anyway.

Where do the figures of 600 pods & FHPs come from?

I would go so far as to say that the majority of whom you write know nothing about what you write.
We await with bated breath the official statements from the spokespersons of these workers.
Dido
PS An after-thought. Any HPC reg practitioner could apply for any of these Band 4 posts, as employers would not like to be seen to discriminate.

 

Hi Dido,

Could we please keep off the personal insults?
The rules are very simple - I don't insult you, you don't insult me.

Thank you.

You said:
"Elsewhere someone has stated that they hope this is not going to turn into SCP-bashing, and I agree."
"Then why do just that?!"

I haven't, if you care to read my post again.

You then said:
"Some Members of the Society are doing something, otherwise we would not have had the document to discuss. I don't recall that SCP ever claimed to speak for the whole UK footcare profession. they do however, speak for the majority of Chiropodists & Podiatrists, the greater number of which trained within a regulated environment."

Some SCP members have highlighted the issue, agreed. but IMO much too late to do anything about it. BTW you mentioned regulated. Both the Institute and SMAE-trained Pods and (in the case of SMAE) FHPs train under a regulated environment.
Also, please bear in mind that there are variations on "regulated". For example, what New College Durham may decide is "regulated" (and this is what we are discussing after all) could well be regarded as totally unregulated by Durham University (if they were at all interested).

Onwards - this is from the report on the SCP forum....
"The aim of the debate was to inform the group about changes affecting the provision of NHS Podiatry Services and Education. Janet Mcinnes provided introductory remarks and a best case scenario. Stuart Baird was supposed to present on the possible shape of the future work force but his presentation focused mainly on how to keep Universities and Schools of Podiatry functioning with dwindling funds.
There was no opportunity for any Private Practitioner to put forward a case of how the private sector is changing with the changing provision of podiatry in the market place. This was pointed out to the organisers of the day and things turned a little heated at this stage. Janet McInnes stated that if we were not happy with the people invited and representation we may as well call it a halt and all go home!"

Are you seriously asking me to believe that the SCP are not suggesting (if only to their membership) that they are acting for, and in the best interests of the whole UK foothealth profession?

They do seem to have lost there way somewhat however.....
I know I would be bloody annoyed if I were still a member:bang:.

They certainly speak for the majority of the profession. no argument. There are around 15,000 people working in foot health in the UK. The Institute show around 2000 members, SMAE show around 4000 members - I didn't count the purely FHP trainers. You will surely concede that currently the non-SCP membership of the footcare industry in the UK is over one third?

You then said:
"The statement about Society membership makes perfect numerical sense."
Please explain the logic behind this statement.


If the SCP are too late to do anything about this training Course (I think they are - you think what you likeigs then membership numbers will make not one iota of difference.

You then wrote:
"I would go so far as to say that the majority of whom you write know nothing about what you write.
We await with bated breath the official statements from the spokespersons of these workers".
Fair comment - but then they are not being told at every turn that the scapegoats (sorry - the FHPs) are the real reason Podiatry in the UK is in such a state of flux.

As jb 3 stated, reading the report on the SCP forum - it does seem awfully like a "done deal".

Bottom line - FHPs (and if it happens, Assistant Podiatrists) are not a threat to UK Pods. There is only one professional body saying they are.

Can you, or anyone else, show me one instance, ever, where FHPs (or more recently, the Grandparented) have either seriously damaged a patient, or interfered with someone's Practice or Practice potential?
Specifics mind, none of this "I had a patient who had a bad toe - he/she went to a FHP and..."

For the record, I don't denigrate the 3-year Diploma or Degree (although I sometimes wonder if the degree-trained Pods (3 year course) come out as practically skillful as the Diploma people (three year course, but without a research project, methods of enquiry, or stats) did.

 

David

Go back and read the report thoroughly.

The Strategic Health Authority will be funding this skills escalator where someone can choose how fast or how slowly they progress. There will be no cost to the individual other than an investment of time.

Why then invest shed loads of your own money into private training when the Government will do it for you? There is a need for cheap footcare in the NHS market and in the private market- Age Concern and Help the Aged say so. I am certain the DoH have listened.

Do we need private trainers in the future? Perhaps more so? Perhaps less so.

These plans affect anyone and everyone from the student, to the FHP, to the NHS employed band 5's and 6's, the podiatrist in private practice - not immediately but look beyond your retirement.

With your own personal access to the SCP website you know the history of how knowledge of Assistant Practitioners came to light; you know that SCP no longer "control" graduate education; you know that this is within the remit of HPC/NHS/DoH so for goodness sakes stop getting angry with SCP, focus your anger on the government, the DoH and if there is anything to unite this profession, without the need for any professional bodies, then this is it.

GB

The specialists are safe.

 

David

you said
"Bottom line - FHPs (and if it happens, Assistant Podiatrists) are not a threat to UK Pods. There is only one professional body saying they are."

Which other body WOULD say they are a threat? its the other bodies that train them(FHPS)!

I too agree with jb3 - it does seem like a done deal, pretty much as the HPC was a done deal. But that doesnt mean that the SCP members shouldnt kick up and try to get their views known.

As I see it, those in the NHS or hoping to work in the NHS when they graduate, are the ones on whom this will have the greatest impact initially- who knows what the long term effects will be if the assistants then manage to worm their way into private practise- where they would be in direct competition to the FHPs - god help us!

You also said
"Can you, or anyone else, show me one instance, ever, where FHPs (or more recently, the Grandparented) have either seriously damaged a patient, "

Dont get me started! we both know how difficult it is to prove unsafe treatment-doesnt mean it doesnt exist- I could write a book! BUT - as you say, I do not have a proven case. I know that is true for a lot of my colleagues too.

hrm94

 

Keep up to speed David. The DoH propose a generic beast that can work across many different depts within an NHS environment for a lot more money than the average FHP.

GB

 

David,
The point of making this posting available to those who did not have access to the Society forum, was to make them aware of the manoeuvres of the SHA and an FE establishment.
It was in the spirit of "freedom" of information, not as an excuse to debate the ethics of the Society or it's Members.
While I am sure we would all be interested in your views on the issues, so far you have not given any.
Therefore I do not propose to continue to debate the finer points of your argument, as it only serves to distract from the issue at hand.

Dido

 

George,
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that this training will be free for everyone who wants it? You certainly seem to be implying it will be better than that which the private trainers curently deliver.

Some of us were shouted down on TFS for saying that the DOH had this up their sleeves. That was (BL will correct me if I'm wrong here) around 3 years ago. What seems to be happening now is that the SCP are dealing with the news (badly) and apologists for the SCP are making excuses for why the plans will no doubt be going ahead.

Of course this will affect everyone, just not necessarily in the negative way you portray.
It does however affect the credibility of the SCP with (some of) it's members - is this what you're worried about?

We could have had a strong, united UK foothealth profession. The Inst and SMAE were keen to come to the Table, but one professional body chose to go it alone and promoted itself as the spokesperson for the whole profession. The sad fact is that in the UK we are simply too small a profession to make ourselves heard without unification. And some of us do not want to unify under the aegis of a professional body who have consistently managed to overwhelmingly undersell our professional skills in both the NHS and private sectors.

Dido, I agree that there is little point in debating this further. I am pretty firmly entrenched in my views - I believe that you, George, and hrm94 seem equally entrenched in yours.

Be happy.

 

Dido's original posting in the spirit of dissemination of information to non SCP members is to be applauded and is very much the reason for this Podiatry Arena forum.

However, not to examine the ethics of the SCP (by which I mean the ethics of its leadership) is to deny forum contributors relevant background understanding.

"It was pointed out that our (SCP's) Strategic plan is to recruit assistants allowing us to follow through on increasing membership to SCP".
(from: an attendees report published under Hamish Dow's letter - SCP website).

The SCP has contributed to the development of National Occupational Standards, Skills for Health, Agenda for Change, the HPC and the former Chiropodists Board and the CPSM, etc, etc, etc, and is therefore in great part to be held responsible for the present circumstances that we find ourselves in.

That the Strategic Health Authority and Dept of Health have now gone around them and attend their Fellmongers HQ to deliver a presentation on what appears to be a 'fait accompli' simply confirms that they have tried to run with the hare and the hounds and have lost any control they might once have had. They no more speak for the profession than does the Alliance (who represent a considerable number of HPC registrants) or the SMAE.

Anyone still believing that we have a 'profession' should give thought to the absolute lack of a coherent skills advancement system applicable to PP and NHS workers (they are all podiatry workers within the same industry). Certainly we shall have Christmas trees, no doubt with some fairy at the top, but we still lack a ladder by which a practitioner can climb step by defined step to the upper branches.

 

David

You do seem very bitter.

No training is free. There is an investment of personal time but no personal funds will be given to the trainer.

Point me in the direction where I imply that this training will be better than that of the private trainer. I have no knowledge of what is involved in private training therefore am not in a position to comment and have never done so.

I don't post on TFS and you are absolutely correct that DoH had this up their sleeves years ago. It doesn't take a great deal of grey matter to follow the development of Teaching Assistants, Nursing Assistants, Physio Assistants, Laboratory Assistants to realise what an ideal profession podiatry is for an Assistant grade with advanced skills.

SCP have been dealing with the news since 2004. Delving into the archives on the Society website with your "special access", I am sure you can uncover documents relating to preparation for this grade of assistant. What some SCP members are objecting to is the dissemination of the information. That is a very different matter.

David you are presumptive. For the private market this can only be a positive. For standards within education and the NHS could this be a negative? A point for debate. Do I care about the credibility of SCP? Do they pay my way in life? Why do any private footcare providers need to unify under any of the current professional bodies?

Like I said earlier, look beyond your own personal retirement and consider the way the private sector may want to unify to protect their own needs and not those of the HPC, Government, DoH, NHS and SCP.

GB

 

George,

You've lost me.

 

'I told you so' is doubtless not very graceful and certainly not a popular statement. However, I am well on record as having predicted this scenario many, many years ago.

My proposal was for not a 'Christmas Tree' with an escalator - a rather strange analogy - but a pyramid structure with ladders from one level to the next. I (amongst others) stated that the only way this could work was via agreement of the professional bodies to form a General Podiatry Council and by doing so take some degree of control for our own future. As David H has mentioned, all the then major bodies with the exception of the Society were not only prepared but keen to do so. The Society (I can quote the individuals on Council at the time) thought that with indicative closure, all the registered would move to the Society. with the Institute and the BChA simply disappearing. This, of course, did not happen. The Society recently responded by spending a large amount of their members' money on attempting to poach members of other professional bodies (arguably a body which does such a thing should cease to be regarded as 'professional') and once again the Society has failed.

If you desire some more predictions, then in a few years time there will be a relatively large number of graduates without jobs to go to in the NHS. Because of this one or more of the Schools will close. Despite the creation of FHPs and Assistant Podiatrists, the private sector will flourish. Generic 'carers' will flourish in the NHS. There will still be at least 3 major professional bodies, and finally, the Society will be forced to come to the table.

Bill Liggins

PS. For that gentleman who has not bothered to research the issue, the Institute does not currently train FHPs, FCAs or any other similar persons. He is either deluded, or worse, is believing the pap that he is fed by his own organisation. That organisation has been training such staff for many, many years. :deadhorse:

 

David,

I'm sorry. Sincerely I am.

GB

 

Bill,

I'm trying to pick something constructive out of your post, just as I am with all of the others.

So far nobody has commented on the plus or minuses of the proposed course.

I had hoped that some of the 'educators' on this forum would add some views.

Here for what they are worth are mine.

In principle there are merits to this approach to education, it has been done for a long time , work experience plus day release. The City and Guilds type exams that ran beside or lead to ON, HNC, HND Diplomas and Degrees are nothing new.

They operated well where there were strong trade bodies and rigid payscales.

What is disturbing to me about this proposal is the environment in which it is being proposed.

An environment where the 'top qualified' practitioners are subject to intense government control, but until that level is reached there is a free for all in the market place.

If and only if government gave the profession FUNCTIONAL closure this would be a route well worth supporting.

Bob Golding

 

Bob

City and Guilds qualifications are inappropriate to this profession because they lead to a vocational qualification that says that you can do the job. Why, then, is there any point in going on to university? Using C&G as an access course is introducing yet another complication to what is already a dogs breakfast. As an 'educator' I have to say that the proposal has little merit.

This thread is originally about the withdrawal of support for BSC programmes threatened by the Strategic Health Authority in a presentation delivered at Fellmongers on 5th February, and the SCPs apparent support of the training of assistant grades.

It would help if we could keep to the subject of the thread.

 

Hello Bob

Nice to see you back.

The positive point which I am making - and this refers also to the post which follows yours - is that the profession as a whole is continually missing opportunities to direct and control the future. I do not believe that we are far apart, nor do I believe that this item would be under discussion if all the professional bodies had come together to discuss the way forward and how WE could exert control rather than leaving it, by default, to the DoH and fellow travellers. There is nothing new in this proposal but as a member of the Society (representing I understand the views of many) has taken the trouble and risk to post on a public site then I feel that others should at least offer some support. It so happens that I believe that there is no shortage of chiropodists/podiatrists and that if the DoH followed a model loosely equating to that of the dental profession most of the profession would be a good deal happier. That the DoH does not, is IMHO, more to do with control than finance per se.

Again, IMHO, the Society will in time be forced to discuss this and other matters with other professional bodies and it would be beneficial not just to the private sector but to others, to have this discussion sooner rather than later. The Society responded to some of my perceived controversial ideas by expelling me. I am not suggesting for a moment that others should go that far but if they feel that a discussion as suggested would be of benefit to the profession, then as members of the Society they can press Council to an accord.

Kind regards

Bill Liggins

 

Bill,

I absolutely agree with your point about missed opportunities. However, 'opportunities' (such as the C&G initiative of the Institute) simply create yet further fragmentation.

The only way forward for so small a group as we collectively are, is to talk together and pull together. But this must be on equal terms. The Society might have existed longer but each of its individual members is no different to any member of any other body. And Society Officers have no greater discretion or understanding than their counterparts.

 

John,

I'm sure I have debated with you in the past?

I find it a bit frustrating talking to a pseudonym, as I cannot understand your background or allegiances.

You say you are an 'educator', so what sort of educator?

Both Bill and I are 'out in the open', that allows me when debating with Bill not to over push the SCP line?

However if you were a member of the SCP and Bill was also privy to the organisation you may be surprised how radical I am, yet to date have never been sanctioned.

Things are changing otherwise this posting could never have happened?

John any chance you will divulge who you are then we can really talk?

I'm interested in why you think the C&G is such a bad idea.

It would also be interesting to hear from Cameron, he was always a good education adviser?

Finally I do not understand why you criticise me for straying from the thread, as your definition of the 'thread' is the first attempt I have seen. (except my opinion of course).

Bob Golding

 

REG

You might consider yourself fortunate that you can be open about your identity. I prefer the pseudonym that is allowed under forum rules, thank you. We have indeed 'crossed swords' in debate before this, you are correct.

What sort of educator am I - a damned good one with 45 years of relevant practical experience in health occupations, NHS and private and, like yourself, a genuine passion for our profession.

My identity has nothing to do with the views that I express. More than most I have been flexible in debate and generous in allowing the views of others. But I have grown tired of the same old points, trotted out at every turn.

The point that I wish to make here is this...that if the mesiah himself was to appear to us he would be disbelieved, critisised, treated with great suspicion and howled down almost before he could speak.

There is too much complexity in education and too many people make their living from it. If anyone stands up with a good idea he will be shot down by some person or faction with another point of view. There are as many points of view as there are practitioners.

The difficulty seems to be that we are all educated sufficiently to hold a view and articulate that view. But few of us trouble to learn sufficient of our profession's history to envisage realistic solutions to our ills. We would rather shoot down anyone daring to make a suggestion. At the same time we fail to collectively critise those deserving of critism -the king and his new clothes syndrome.

C&G is a vocational qualification. I gained a C&G Diploma at the age of 21. It made me master of my trade, a tradesman, not a professional. What makes it suitable to be an entry to a degree programme? What makes it more suitable than an accredited FHP programme? What is the difference? It is simply an unwelcome further fractionation of an occupation with altogether too many factions.

Respond to my points if you wish REG. I would welcome constructive debate. But I must ask you please to respect my identity and position.

 

Johnpod,

Ok no problem with that.

I'm just a little confused here or perhaps blinkered?

To me a C&G is a recognised qualification with recognised standards capable of regulation and validation.

As far as I know there are no such things as 'accredited FHP programmes'.

Am I just trading words?

I really have problems with any attempt to 'validate' the FHP notion as you rightly point out there is too much complexity in education.

I'm not clear whether you class me amongst 'those who have not troubled to learn the history? I'm a late entrant to this game, from a background in Management consultancy, used to entrenched positions.

I have tried to learn the past, however it would seem your experience means you are resigned to future failure?

Respectfully Bob.

 

Hello Bob,

No, not resigned to future failure but becoming despondent that this occupation shall never enjoy success.

For information, my C&G Diploma was gained by part-time day-release and two evenings per week whilst undertaking a five year indentured apprenticship.

The three largest FHP trainers are accredited, each by a different accreditation body. This means that their respective courses are confirmed by an independant education body as being written correctly with identified learning outcomes and student feedback taught correctly by tutors of defined quality and delivered by institutions with adequate premises, facilities, equipment and staffing levels. Internal and external moderation, course development and inspection are part of the arrangement. This fails to impress those who want to believe that all FHP training is shallow and worthless. The same charges will no doubt be made against the proposed C&G course. After all, C&G is simply another accreditation body...no different to the others.

The seemingly projected New College Durham Assistant Podiatrist course is obviously going to launch yet another group of trained people into the workplace. Are they really going to remain (registered?) assistants if they can take more income by becoming self-employed? And a one year course is better delivered by a university, is it? Is it really?

Your point about closure of the profession is a perfectly good one - except that it's not going to happen. It is certainly not going to happen in a fragmented industry such as we are at present. But if I stood up tomorrow and invited the SCP to hold talks with the Alliance, what do you expect the SCP response would be?

Exactly! And it has reached a stage where, if the SCP wanted to talk to the Alliance, they might be told where to get off - politely, of course!

 

Johnpod, I don't see a threat mentioned that the SHA will be withdrawing support to the BSc programme. I was under the impression that financial support will still be there with encouragment, by the SHA, towards filling band 4 positions - the Assistant Practitioner grade. How band 4 positions are filled seems to have been decided by Educationalists and NHS managers by proposing the development and training of a new layer of foot care workers. These plans have been developed outside of the SCP without the knowledge of the majority of SCP members.

Also to consider are the number of podiatrists set to retire vs the numbers in BSc training and the demands on NHS managers to deliver a service with less funds. Therefore a greater and cheaper work force can be achieved by training more Assistant Practitioners using the funds from SHA with only a few continuing up the Skills Escalator to achieve a BSc.

I guess it makes perfect sense if you ignore the rest of the foot care work force and their ability to carry out NHS work if they so wish to be commissioned by the NHS commissioner.

GB

 

JohnP,

Despondency does seem to be quite prevalent in those Pods who have been around a long time.

I think we may well be of a similar age. I am an exiled Brummy and well remember the heady days of indentured apprenticeships and part time day release. it produced some great engineers, people who not only knew their theory but could do the job. Rover apprentices are still very influential in the automotive world.

There has been an argument to say that the swop from the SRCh Diploma to Degree was a bad move for skills acquisition, I cannot comment I did the 1st honours course and certainly acquired, in my opinion, excellent manual and diagnostic skills. I went straight into private practice. What the honours degree gave was a 'way of thinking'.

While I do not wish to denigrate the FHP training, by comparison with the degree even you would have to admit it is 'shallow'? Whether it is worthless is a separate issue?

The reservation most degree pods have is not necessarily the distance learning material but the 'hands on supervised work experience'.

There can be no argument that some privately trained pods go on to have successful professional lives, DTT is one example, perhaps it is unfortunate that the image is tarnished by those who inevitably have to learn on the job, on their own.

I take your point about 'accreditation bodies'. it used to be that before the HPC the Society was the accreditation body/adviser for the CPSM. This is no longer the case, it is the QAA, so has expertise been replaced by 'generic academia'? I'm afraid if you look around there is always some 'body' who will accredit something. Look at BSY and Stonebridge, even the Alliance requires them to do more study to join!

The issue IMO around NCD is more complex than 'yet another group of trained people coming into the workplace', but you are correct they are and should they step outside of the NHS environment can perform as FHPs.

Who is best to deliver this one year course is as you say debatable, but it is not a University, it is a 'school of Pod' within a University. Unlike the ARU top up degree which is in Health studies (Podiatry).

I think George has addressed the NCD proposals in between posting so I will not repeat.

I will admit I am a bit 'fixated' on Functional Closure, but it is against SCP policy. Whether it is achievable or not is another issue, there would have to be a will first.

As far as the SCP and Alliance holding talks, IMO talking never did any harm, that is why I post on forums.

No disrespect intended but in the big picture the Alliance may be very vocal but is a small player.

I'm not too sure who you mean by the 3 largest FHP trainers?

I think I am on record saying that the SCPs attempt to 'poach' other bodies members (not my words) was pathetic in it's application. That aside the most obvious combination would be the allegedly troubled Institute and the SCP, a role for the few FHPs would have to be negotiated.

The SMAE and Alliance could recombine and concentrate on their future the FHP market.

Under those circumstances only two bodies would need to 'thrash it out at the table'?

Now see I can talk heresy too.

Bob Golding

 

Careful Bob, the stake and fiery faggotts await you!

The BChP is still a large organisation with many HPC registered members and although small, the Alliance has registered members also. As I understand it, they both have access to new registered members through publicity and offering an alternative to the Society and the Institute. I really don't think that the DoH would be prepared to listen to the profession unless it was 'united' and this would necessarily involve all those bodies.

All the best

Bill

 

Bill

Do not misunderstand me I recognise the distribution of HPC reg Pods post grandparenting, what I am talking about is the future recruiting ground.

I think we all agree that the majority of Graduate pods traditionally joined the Society. Some of course joined nothing, perhaps where 'union' representation was not strong in the NHS.

I am prepared to be corrected but I do not thing the others have made much impact on that tradition.

So I'm just trying to be 'practical'.

I agree until we speak as one voice the DOH will get away with murder.

Thanks for the warning, I think I may just have gone too far on a different subject.

You may be needing to pm me an application form for the Institute, and remember there is nothing like a convert!:empathy:

Bob

 

Hi Bob

How many times can you:bang: without relenting to despondency?

In our past attempts to "Unite" the professional bodies "we met" you listened and your prejudice disappeared when you learned the truth.

We engaged in discussion and tried to get all sides around the table:sinking:

It didn't work unfortunately whether it ever will without a motivation from somewhere ?? Your guess is as good as mine.

All I can say is these FHP's are in the "foot care industry" and have paid a lot of money to get there.

They have been caught up in the "multi million pound" training of foot care practitioners.

These training establishments are NOT going to go away whether we like it or not.

Look at history the war has been going on for YEARS and still they are churning out people that with the best will in the world pay their money, get the training and are then they either sink or swim.

I feel the majority sink (based on the fact if they all swam every other person would be a successful practitioner in foot care!! )

We have missed the boat with closure it is in a worse mess now than it ever was but that is not the fault of the FHP it is OUR fault for not uniting when we had the chance IMO.


As you are aware I post in the main now in Ortho-peds site which has FHPs contributing to discussion.

We also have started an "independent " study group open to all which the first one was a great success (and from my standpoint I can inform true facts to more people who are now as converted as you Bob) as well as learning on a level I never thought would be possible because it is an Apolitical body

So as a long standing Pod practitioner am I despondent ?

With my practice and CPD No not at all and am striving to improve .

With the position of the profession as a whole ??YES YES YES

Because we never seem to move forward we spend all our time turning inwards on ourselves and try to bore one another to death with the same old war cry:boohoo:

I said to you in a pm we are coming to the end of our careers so really we can just look and ponder but I know we are both still passionate enough to try to move forward

Cheers Fella

Derek

 

Derek

"As you are aware I post in the main now in Ortho-peds site which has FHPs contributing to discussion."

Not quite true- i believe you have just started a thread trying to get the FHPs to post? This is very brave of you, as one of the the 2 replies shows just how little they know- it doesnt really inspire confidence.
Are you seriously asking us to accept FHPs just because it is not their fault that they paid money for a course that has no regulation? My heart bleeds for them.

Your independent study group also had no FHPs present I believe- maybe they know their limitations in the presence of the titled!- or was it because the subjects were just way above their heads?

regards
hrm

 

Hello L... hrm

Yes completely true if you search the threads on the main site you will find posts from FHPs.

Or perhaps it could be they are not posting because of the morons that appear every so often and intimidate with their prejudice and spite ?

I'm not asking YOU to do anything I was merely stating a fact and one that will not alter because YOU want it to.

I believe Martin Harvey had invited one to come along but for reasons I do not know was unable to attend but they have a open invite to the next one.

Some of the subjects were way above my head and many others heads on that weekend especially with Martins Prolotherapy but awe struck I was and enjoyed every moment.

If you actually opened your mind and stood back from your obvious prejudice perhaps you also could learn ?

Just a thought
Cheers
Derek

 

Hello DTT,
Let's look at some facts.
All those practitioners who are HPC registered are required to function within an environment that is controlled by legislation to protect the public, eg. strict infection control procedures, min use time for autoclaved instruments, decontamination protocols, compulsory CPD. etc. etc.
All of this imposes a cost structure on the regulated that is not imposed on the unregulated sector. As all of us in business know, any activity that does not create income for the business is a cost to the business. So consequently these costs have to be passed on to the service user.
If FHPS were subject to the same constraints and we had a level playing field, which would create parity of cost between the two groups, I wonder how many of the unregulated would still want (or even be able to continue finacially) to practice?
FHPs do not have the same in-depth training as pods. For every one that acknowledges this and tries to rectify the gaps in their skills and knowledge there must be many others who don't. I have seen postings on the orthoped site from FHPs who are struggling to deal with basic conditions that a 1st year pod student would be able to handle. To me this is a great cause for concern and that site only scratches the surface.
The problem as you say, lies with the private trainers who encourage the FHP to believe they are far more competant than they actually are. This is maybe why many do not feel the need to do further training.
As someone who trained via the private route, perhaps you could suggest an solution?
Dido

 

Hi guys,

With my mod hat on, I notice that this discussion is starting to stray a little.

Could I suggest we keep to topic (or start another thread).

Thank you.

 

David

I agree with you, and that would have been in my answer to Derek, written but not typed yet.

Would you like to suggest a title for a new tread, and perhaps send those posts you think more relevant to it?

Bob