Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Political Developments

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Mark Russell, Nov 1, 2004.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Dear Colleagues

    For those of you interested in politics, podiatry will be on the agenda
    tomorrow (Tuesday 2 November) at Westminster during Health Questions (Q8 if I recall).

    A briefing will also be given in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday 3
    November at 5pm in Committee Rm 4. You are most welcome to attend.

    Best wishes

    Mark Russell
     
  2. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Mark,
    I for one would be interested in comments from our leading professional bodies
    (SCP and SMAE) regarding these developments (the above + the Scottish Petition).
    I have to admit to being a little baffled as to why the SCP spokesperson prefers to use the academic forum (jiscmail) to voice his opinions, rather than this forum :confused:
    Cheers,
    David
     
  3. Professional Briefing (Scotland)

    The first cross-party briefing session with politicians was held in the contemporary splendour of Scotland’s new parliament building in Edinburgh on Wednesday 3 November. This event followed the debate on podiatry provision in May, where, for the first time in any British parliament, politicians examined the issues surrounding the delivery of services and care that we provide.

    The session was reasonably well attended with around twenty members of the profession and half a dozen members of parliament – including the deputy convenor.

    Mr Ralph Graham started the proceedings with an eloquent speech, which highlighted the perennial problem of capacity and demand within the National health Service. He then went on to explain the benefits of podiatric surgery and touched on the agreement between the Society and the Royal College of Surgeons (Edin) that resulted in the joint initiative MSc (Surgery), which started earlier this year.

    Mr Stephen Moore from the Society then spoke at length regarding workforce planning – a subject he covered in October during his evidence to the Health Committee in Holyrood. He explained some of the initiatives that were running in Scotland’s health service, including new posts for podiatry educators and researchers. Stephen also reinforced the maxim that “NHS Scotland Podiatry Services exist to ensure that the people of Scotland can achieve their optimum mobility and independence of movement, with the minimum of pain and disability, enabling them to undertake active, healthy and productive lives.” The debate was then opened to the floor.

    Mary Scanlon MSP welcomed the profession’s willingness to highlight the difficulties it faces in the delivery of its care and stressed the importance of communication between members and politicians. This was a central theme of her keynote speech a week earlier at the Society’s annual conference in Glasgow. Mary enquired what solutions the profession was considering in addressing the problems surrounding capacity.

    Mr David Wylie (Podiatry Manager Glasgow) explained the current approach to skill mixing and offered a portrayal of the podiatry triage system that is being used in Glasgow at present. David also spoke at length about the Scottish Managers Forum and the work it has been doing in relation to service redesign.

    Mr Stephen Moore supported this with an illustration of the use of the voluntary sector in supporting clinical practice for ‘low risk’ patients. He also stressed the importance of training new grades of professionals – assistant grade practitioners - to support specialist podiatrists in their daily work.

    Dr Jean Turner MSP asked what measures could be taken to increase the workforce to cope with rising demand from all sectors.

    Mr Stuart Baird (Head of School in Glasgow) explained the limitations of producing more graduates within the current educational boundaries, suggesting that with the right amount of support and resources, his school could increase its output by up to 15 graduates each year. A discussion followed on how this could be achieved.

    Mr Mike Rumbles MSP also offered his support to the profession in its quest to secure a greater share of the health budget explaining he had a vested interest in podiatry’s future – his wife is a practising member in Grampian. Mike also touched on the problems with capacity and urged the profession to consider imaginative delivery options for future provision.

    Mr Ralph Graham reinforced the tiered approach to care – from empowering carers and family members and harnessing the voluntary and social services to assist the NHS in patient care – through to the use of podiatric surgeons to assist in reducing orthopaedic waiting times.

    Mr Stephen Moore then introduced one of his podiatry team in the western isles whose role it is to educate and train members of the public and voluntary sector in the provision of low-risk foot care.

    Mr Graham Pirie made a valuable submission towards the close of proceedings regarding sterilisation of instruments. It was explained how much of an impact this would have on services at current funding levels.

    Mr Brian Christie (Podiatry Manager Tayside) remarked that the cost of providing sterile instruments would be greater than his entire budget at present. Mr David Wylie supported this position adding that if disposable instruments were used instead, the resulting stockpile would fill one of Scotland’s lochs in a very short time! Mr Ralph Graham explained the thinking behind the initiative and suggested that there was no need for this approach in general podiatric practice as evidence showed that cross-contamination with prions did not occur with non-surgical chiropodial procedures.

    Trish Gorman MSP (Deputy Convenor) interjected some controversy when she remarked that recently she had taken to having a pedicure and found it a wonderful experience. Some members of the profession were clearly in a state of apoplexy over the choice of her words but Mary Scanlon redressed the balance and restored order by explaining to the Deputy Convenor the folly of her ways.

    The session concluded at 7pm with an undertaking from the members of parliament to hold further meetings with the profession during the coming year. An pledge was also given to secure access to the Health Minister to highlight the problems surrounding NHS practice.

    The Society had produced a briefing paper for the event entitled “Developing a Podiatry Framework for NHS Scotland” and this was distributed to those present during refreshments at the close of proceedings.

    My thanks to the Society for accepting the invitation to attend, especially their Scottish Liaison Officer, Karen Utting, for co-ordinating with Mary Scanlon’s office. My thanks also to the five podiatry managers, Mr Christie (Tayside), Mr Wylie (Glasgow), Mr McCrossan (Lanarkshire), Mr Moore (Western Isles) and Ms Donald (Lothian) and nine of their NHS staff who made the effort to travel to Parliament. Thanks also to Mr Stuart Baird and Mr Ralph Graham who, along with Mr Stephen Moore are members of the Society’s Council.

    Mark Russell

    6 November 2004
     
  4. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Mark - thanks for the valuable posts .... much appeciated.:)
     
  5. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Obvious?

    Mark,
    The NHS clearly have a problem with volume foot-health delivery.
    Isn't it obvious that the simplest solution would be to devolve footcare into regulated private practice :confused: ?
    After all, the private practitioners already exist....
    The bricks and mortar already exist...
    The chairs, units, instruments already exist....

    The profession (made up largely, as far as I could see from your report, of SCP members with a vested interest in keeping NHS podiatry a separate entity) represented at this meeting would then not have to seek unusual/untried solutions, such as use of the voluntary sector for low risk patients :eek: .

    Would you be willing to share your own thoughts/observations on this?
    Cheers,
    David
     
  6. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    From looking at the SCP forum today it would seem that the SCP are taking the credit for organising this meeting, and further, that they actively talked about private practice as being an option to deal with too many pod patients/not enough NHS pods.
    Mark, can you confirm or deny that these statements?
    Regards,
    David
     
  7. Political/Professional Developments

    Hi Dave

    If I may I'll come back on all these issues in the coming few days. The purpose of staging a brief was two-fold - it gave the professional hierarchy access to a non-partisan political audience and it revealed the Society's strategy for developing practice in the UK. The latter is something many of us have been enquiring about for some time, but to no avail. Now we know. My observations and recommendations will follow shortly.

    Kind regards

    Mark Russell
     
  8. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Thanks Mark,
    I and many others are aware that you, whilst holding no brief for any third party, are au-fait with the current political scene in the UK as regards podiatry. Your viewpoint is of great value to the profession, since you have no vested interests, other than those of the profession and it's patients.

    To my mind, the ramifications of devolving some NHS work into a structured private practice scenerio could be hugely beneficial to three parties; the profession as a whole, the private practitioner (his/her income anyway), and last, but by no means least, the patient :) .

    Look forward to your clarification, comments and impressions in due course.
    Regards,
    David
     
  9. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

  10. Parliamentary Questions

    The following were lodged in the Scotish Parliament:
    S2W-12055 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive whether all patients with an assessed clinical need for podiatry will be provided with care and treatment free at the point of delivery.
    S2W-12056 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that all patients receiving podiatric care are treated by appropriately-trained and clinically-competent staff.
    S2W-12057 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive whether national waiting time targets will be set and monitored for podiatric care based upon assessed clinical need.
    S2W-12058 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are any plans for patients requiring podiatric care to be able to self-refer to open access clinics.
    S2W-12059 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to introduce emergency clinics for patients with acute foot problems.S2W-12060 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to develop podiatry assistant or assistant practitioner-led clinics for (a) patients with specific foot health needs and (b) foot health education.
    S2W-12061 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive how patients gain access to podiatry care for the management of (a) gait and mobility problems and (b) musculo-skeletal disease.
    S2W-12062 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that patients suffering from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are given access to early podiatric intervention to address the risks of developing severe deformities of the feet, ulceration and infection, on a similar basis to people with diabetes.
    S2W-12063 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to develop extended roles, skills enhancement and access to a wider range of assessment tools to allow podiatrists to make a significant impact on prevention of lower limb amputations.
    S2W-12064 Mary Scanlon: To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that elderly people receive good foot health and footwear advice in order to prevent foot and gait-related problems and in order to meet the NHS’s target of increasing the number of older people taking physical exercise.
     
  11. Parliamentary Answers

    The following answers were received today regarding podiatry provision in Scotland.

    Yours sincerely

    Mark Russell

    **********************************************

    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    10 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how many podiatry patients have been treated in (a) the community and (b) hospital in each of the last five years.
    (S2W-11831)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The available information showing the number of new podiatry patients treated in Scotland is presented in the table:

    NHSScotland New Podiatry Patients
    Patients treated Hospital1 Patients treated Community2
    1999 69,715 424,418
    2000 61,151 424,808
    2001 60,102 437,478
    2002 58,928 431,232
    2003 54,651 445,068p
    2004 57,088p n/a

    1 year ending March
    2 year ending December
    p provisional

    Source: ISD Scotland Forms (ISD(S)1, ISD(S)8

    *************************************************

    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    10 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what provision is made to ensure that children are screened to detect foot problems and help prevent conditions that develop as a result of defective and abnormal gait.
    (S2W-11833)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    There is currently no national screening programme for the detection of foot problems or abnormal gait in children. The most recent Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health review of childhood screening and surveillance activity found little evidence to support a formal screening programme for defective or abnormal gait. However, a check of the hips is part of the general physical examination of all children within the first 24 hours of birth and at 6-8 weeks. Health professionals will also explore any cause for concern in the course of their regular contact with children and their families. Information about local practice is not held centrally.

    ************************************


    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    10 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how many podiatric surgeons are currently being trained in Scotland.
    (S2W-11832)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    Twenty students have registered for the first year of the recently introduced MSc in the theory of podiatric surgery being run jointly by Glasgow Caledonian University and Queen Margaret University College.


    SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
     
  12. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    Mark's posting reminds me of a little gem from Colin Dagnell's British Journal of Chiropody many years ago and it referred to Hassard on the 21st October, the year escapes me. In parliament (London) John Smith (sadly lamented parliamentarian who would in my humble opinion made an excellent Prime Minister) took to his feet during a debate on 'Closure of the Podiatry professio' and reminded the house that this was the anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar (21st of October 1805), and why on Earth would the seat of government concern itself with such trivia.

    What Smith perhaps was unaware of, was the Duke of Wellington despised all corn operators and said so, quite publically. He was of the belief all people with sore feet deserved them and would not have a general in his army who complained of sore feet. He sued at least one corn operator for having the audacity to involve his name as a form of quasi endorsement of the toe nail clippers services. Napoleon on the other hand (or was it foot) had as his best friend and confident his corn cutter. The foot man accommpanied the Boggieman throughout all his campaigns and was held captive with him on board ship in the port of in Elba. The Brits could not get Nappy's inner circle to spill the beans on the Napoleon's plans and offered immunity to anyone who was able to put a foot on British soil. The only one to jump ship when the guards turned a blind eye was the corn cutter. He was given his freedom in return and allowed to set up in business in London.

    With the above in mind perhaps the conflict between Britain and France had more to do with the rights to foot care, than Smith and other detractors might have realised. It is interesting to note that everytime closure of the profession has been on statute it has corresponded to a time of major national disaster, like WWI and II and the Falklands. What is it about feet that brings the worst out in bipeds?

    Comments please. :)


    Have a good one
     
  13. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    12 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what procedures are in place to assure patients that all podiatrists are trained, qualified and fit to practice.
    (S2W-11501)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    Since July 2003, podiatry is a protected title. This means that all podiatrists must have undergone the minimum of a 3 year undergraduate degree programme or an honours degree. Successful completion of the education programmes leads to registration by the Health Professions Council (HPC). The HPC is an independent, UK wide regulatory body responsible for setting and maintaining standards of professional training, performance and conduct of the professions it regulates. Registration is also a condition of employment. It is an offence to practice as a podiatrist while unregistered and anyone who does is subject to prosecution. The education programmes are quality assured by the Quality Assurance Agency to make sure that graduates are fit to practice.

    Non registered professionals who have used the now protected title prior to July 2003 must undergo a “grandparenting” process. This means that they must have been engaged in the lawful, safe and effective practice in the profession they wish to be registered in for a period of three out of the last five years. If they fall short of this they must demonstrate that they have undergone additional training and experience that satisfies the HPC that they have the requisite standard of proficiency for admission to the register.


    SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


    Comments?
     
  14. Parliamentary Answers

    Written answers to the questions lodged earlier this month. Any comments?

    Mark Russell

    ************************************************
    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether all patients with an assessed clinical need for podiatry will be provided with care and treatment free at the point of delivery.
    (S2W-12055)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards. As part of NHS service provision there is no charge to patients for NHS podiatry services.



    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that all patients receiving podiatric care are treated by appropriately-trained and clinically-competent staff.
    (S2W-12056)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    NHS Boards and Operating Divisions are responsibility for both clinical and staff governance. They must therefore ensure that all Allied Health Professionals, including Podiatrists, are registered to practice with the Health Professions Council and that they are appropriately trained.




    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether national waiting time targets will be set and monitored for podiatric care based upon assessed clinical need.
    (S2W-12057)
    Mr Andy Kerr

    There are no plans to include podiatric care in the national waiting time targets.



    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are any plans for patients requiring podiatric care to be able to self-refer to open access clinics.
    (S2W-12058)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards. The issue of access to NHS podiatry services is a matter for clinical decision in the light of the health needs of individual patients.



    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to introduce emergency clinics for patients with acute foot problems.
    (S2W-12059)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    There are no plans to introduce emergency clinics for patients with acute foot problems. The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards. The issue of access to NHS podiatry services is a matter for clinical decision in the light of the health needs of individual patients.




    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to develop podiatry assistant or assistant practitioner-led clinics for (a) patients with specific foot health needs and (b) foot health education.
    (S2W-12060)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards. The issue of access to NHS podiatry services is a matter for clinical decision in the light of the health needs of individual patients.

    The Allied Health Professions Officer in the Scottish Executive has commissioned a national consultation on Allied Health Professions role development, which includes podiatrists, and this is currently underway.




    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how patients gain access to podiatry care for the management of (a) gait and mobility problems and (b) musculo-skeletal disease.
    (S2W-12061)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards. The issue of access to NHS podiatry services is a matter for clinical decision in the light of the health needs of individual patients.




    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that patients suffering from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are given access to early podiatric intervention to address the risks of developing severe deformities of the feet, ulceration and infection, on a similar basis to people with diabetes.
    (S2W-12062)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards. The issue of access to NHS podiatry services is a matter for clinical decision in the light of the health needs of individual patients.




    SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
    WRITTEN ANSWER
    19 November 2004
    Index Heading: Health Department
    Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to develop extended roles, skills enhancement and access to a wider range of assessment tools to allow podiatrists to make a significant impact on prevention of lower-limb amputations.
    (S2W-12063)
    Mr Andy Kerr:

    The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services are matters for NHS Boards. The Allied Health Professions Officer in the Scottish Executive has commissioned a national consultation on Allied Health Professions role development, which includes podiatrists, and this is currently underway. The consultation will inform the development of a generic Framework for role development.


    ****************************************************
     
  15. Robin Crawley

    Robin Crawley Active Member

    Well they certainly like this sentence: "The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards."

    It seems that they don't really want to address these issues...

    I'm wondering then who exactly are the NHS boards, and how could they be influenced by us?

    Cheers,

    Robin.
     
  16. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Good question Robin.
    Mark has the answer on who the NHS Boards are/ are answerable to.

    How can they be influenced? (Why are more UK pods not asking this :eek: ).

    Follow this thread :) !
    Regards,
    David
     
  17. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Hi Robin

    Quote

    "It seems that they don't really want to address these issues..."

    I think the Scottish Executive have ( see post 13 in this thread)

    Nice to see common sense prevailing in Scotland as well .

    To unify rather than divide .

    Hopefully the HPC will prevail in Scotland under that name or any other but bound by the same rules and regulation.

    Best wishes

    Derek
     
  18. Aye right Derek. Keep taking the medication. It's the best policy!
     
  19. Stephen Moore

    Stephen Moore Member

    Podiatry (Tartan) Politics

    There are fifteen Health Boards in Scotland, in simple terms Health Boards are charged with commissioning health care for a designated population. Their structure, the non-executive directors of the Board and their funding (based around a complex formula – the Arbuthnott Formula) is controlled centrally by the Scottish Executive Health Department (a civil service arm of the Government).

    The Health Boards are as follows (lets hope I do not get it wrong as I will never live it down!) :eek:

    Dumfries and Galloway Health Board
    Borders Health Board
    Lanarkshire Health Board
    Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
    Argyll and Clyde Health Board
    Greater Glasgow Health Board
    Lothian Health Board
    Forth Valley Health Board
    Fife Health Board
    Tayside Health Board
    Grampian Health Board
    Highland Health Board
    Western Isles Health Board (where I am Head of Podiatry)
    Orkney Health Board
    Shetland Health Board

    Go to Scottish Health on the Web website for more information, link below

    Scottish Health on the Web


    The response from the Minister is typical of any politician (its not me its them!)

    [B]“The planning and provision of NHS podiatry services is a matter for NHS boards.”[/B]

    Sure planning of local services to meet the needs of the population is a responsibility of Health Boards, but how do you ensure that there is a NATIONAL Health Services. Podiatry by postcode is a very real problem in England and there are unfortunately signs of this migrating north of the border.

    Government must (with advice!!) set out what it wishes to see delivered nationally, it is then up to individual Health Boards to determine how this will be achieved, what resources will be made available etc..

    [B]“The issue of access to NHS podiatry services is a matter for clinical decision in the light of the health needs of individual patients.” [/B] – not to do with the availability of funding, staff etc. how re-assuring. :rolleyes:

    It is important to understand however, that Scotland has a devolved government and more importantly Health care is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore Scotland is not forced, required or otherwise to follow the approach taken in England. I am pleased that in many respects it does not and is perhaps starting to stand on its own two feet! (Lets not get into the independence debate please!) – Hopefully it will therefore understand the importance of access to podiatry care :D

    Influencing Health Boards - best approach initially is through SEHD and local/national politicians.

    Getting good evidence of the impact podiatry can have on a population, demonstrating how podiatry can deliver within the very challenging modern health care agenda.

    I would recommend colleagues obtain a copy of a document produced by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists (UK) which sets out the benefits of NHS Physiotherapy and a very effective way. Title has gone completely out of my head will post details later. podiatry needs a very similar documents.

    Regards

    Stephen
     
  20. Stephen Moore

    Stephen Moore Member

    Podiatry (Tartan) Politics - HPC

    Derek

    Mark Russell has posed a very interesting question to the Scottish Parliament within his e-petition (see his earlier posts)


    Forget the registered/previously not registered debate, but it potentially presents a challenge to statute etc. (I do not pretend to understand for one minute the leglisative framework in which our parliament(s) operate, but as I understand it Scotland agreed to a UK wide regulator (for obvious commonsense reasons), however, the Scottish Parliament is responsible for the delivery of safe and effective healthcare. What if for what ever reason it was unhappy with the operation of the HPC, could it pull out of the agreement, force changes to UK legislation or set up its own (one presumes better) regulator?

    Regards

    Stephen
     
  21. Stephen Moore

    Stephen Moore Member

    Podiatry politics - influencing Health Boards and SEHD

    Its now come to me, the document is called "Making Physiotherapy Count - a range of quality assured services"

    Link to document on CSP website

    Regards

    stephen
     
  22. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Stephen,
    Succinctly put.
    This would then lead the way for a self-regulating profession. Unification of the whole profession is certainly one of my long-term ambitions, and this would seem to be the best way to go about it.

    Few would argue against the premise that a unified profession is a strong profession, but some should bear in mind that unification does not only mean unification of grandparented + degree-trained. Unification means uniting all the factions, which include private practitioners, NHS-staff, graduates, SMAE-trained, surgeons - to name but a few :eek: .

    I'm a little disappointed that the SCP have not been seen to be doing more in this corner - but appreciate your personal postings which, as always, are balanced and informative.
    Regards,
    David
     
  23. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Hi Stephen

    You say


    "it Scotland agreed to a UK wide regulator (for obvious commonsense reasons),"

    That is the HPC .

    Like it or not you have it .

    Best wishes

    Derek
     
  24. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Derek,
    The HPC are the only regulatory body we have, but that does not mean they represent the best for us, or our profession :eek: .

    I started off believing that the HPC would benefit all. I have serious doubts about that now. I think the current political scene in Scotland is interesting, and could pave the way forward for a self-regulatory podiatry body.
    Not one which is going to castigate the grandparented in favour of the previously SRCh'd, but one which will work for the good of the whole profession.

    Stephen's view is very valid and welcome, given that he is an SCP Council member AND an NHS Head of Podiatry Sevices.

    In case you don't see the relevance, this is the first moderated forum on which SCP members, SCP Council members, former SRCh, SMAE graduates etc etc can enter into meaningful dialogue on this type of matter.
    Cheers,
    David
     
  25. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    David H

    My point to Stephen is , the HPC comes into force in a few months time as part of a NATIONAL scheme .

    Now like it or not , that is going to happen certainly in England and Wales and at the moment I believe Scotland as well.

    As I have said before I also agree with a podiatry council its the methods being used by some to get it I object to .

    But I'm not going down that road again :p :)

    Let's hope that the differing views expressed on this site will go some way towards solving problems and those of Stephens eminence will carry them forward to make a united profession .

    Best wishes
    Derek
     

  26. I was always regarded as a bit of a troublemaker Stephen. It was partly due to the deviant company I kept during student days in Edinburgh. You remember the curious incident with the shark's head Syd? I still have trouble sleeping today when I think back on it! Good job Fanny never found out, huh?
     
  27. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    I heard about that..........................................
     
  28. For another time Dave. Perhaps with some festive spirit??
     
  29. Parliamentary Petition on Regulation of Helth professionals

    Just a short update on the petition that was submitted to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament last month.

    I have received notification that the petition was formally lodged with Parliament on 14 December and will be considered by the Committee at its meeting on Wednesday 19 January 2005 where a statement will be made in support of the position adopted by the petition, followed by a Q & A session.

    Can I just express my thanks to all those who signed the petition and sent messages of encouragement. It was much appreciated. I shall, of course, keep you informed of further progress.


    Mark Russell
     
  30. Parliamentary Evidence - Regulation & Grand-Parenting

    Colleagues

    Yesterday, the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament took evidence in relation to the petition submitted on 27 October 2004 regarding regulation of health professionals in Scotland. This has direct implications for podiatrists throughout the UK as it directly refers to the grand-parenting process implemented by the Health Professions Council (HPC) in 2002. At the end of the session, the committee took the decision to refer the matter to the Health Minister and to write formally to the HPC in relation to the issues raised.

    Colleagues who wish to view the session can view the broadcast by clicking the link below.

    The submission is third on the agenda.

    Can I also thank all those who supported this petition by adding their name to the Parliament website during November, and also a big thanks to Jacqui Baggeley who gave supporting evidence on the day. Jacqui - you’re a star and the very best wishes for your big day this weekend!

    Mark Russell


    Petition: http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/backgroundinfo.asp?TopicID=36

    Broadcast: http://www.holyrood.tv/library.asp?iPid=3&section=43&title=Public Petitions
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2005
  31. Transcript of Health Questions (Westminster)

    Transcript of debate at Westminster on 18/1/5 regarding podiatry provision in NHS.
    **************************************************

    Dame Marion Roe (Broxbourne) (Con): What assessment he has made of the availability of chiropody services for senior citizens. [208902]

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): There are 3,807 chiropodists employed in the NHS, which is a 15.9 per cent. increase since 1997. It is for local primary care trusts to determine local priorities for access to chiropody.

    Dame Marion Roe: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he tell the House his estimate of the number of patients with foot problems who have been deemed to be low risk and thus discharged from NHS care and forced to look in the voluntary and private sectors to find the specialist chiropody services that they need? What plans does he have to draw up guidelines on the management and treatment of foot problems to lay down a patient's minimum entitlement to NHS care and remove the current postcode lottery of entitlement to foot care?

    Dr. Ladyman: Once upon a time there was such guidance on who should have access to chiropody services, but it was scrapped in 1994 under the previous Government. We have simply moved to a situation in which local primary care trusts are responsible for ensuring that everyone in their areas has access to the foot care that they need. Most PCTs are concentrating specialist problems on specialist chiropodists and thus leaving other organisations, such as those in the voluntary sector, to deal with less specialist needs, but each PCT has the responsibility to ensure that everyone in its area has access to the appropriate foot care that they need.

    Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): A number of senior citizens go to private chiropodists for their care. Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how many of those chiropodists will fail to register with the new Health Professions Council? One chiropodist in my constituency said that the process is very bureaucratic and expensive. My constituent would like to see automatic registration for anyone who has three years' experience. He thinks that the level of presently practising chiropodists will fall because they will no longer be able to practise under that title. That may cause a crisis and, obviously, difficulties for those who are receiving treatment under the NHS as well.

    Dr. Ladyman: I do understand the issue that my hon. Friend is raising. These are matters, first, for the Health Professions Council. More importantly, they are negotiated closely with the professional bodies representing chiropodists and podiatrists. We try to meet their needs in terms of registration. Although individual chiropodists may have views about the democratic nature of the requirements for registration, I can assure my hon. Friend that the professional bodies that represent those individual podiatrists are having their views closely adhered to by those who have to implement these arrangements.

    Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): Can the Minister explain why over the years since Labour came to power fewer people have had access to NHS chiropody services?

    Dr. Ladyman: I can certainly do that. The figures are roughly similar to the number of new starts in each year since we came to power. The total number of procedures carried out each year is roughly the same. There is a slight decrease, and that entirely reflects the fact that more and more of the specialist podiatrists are concentrating on specialist processes that take longer than the old, simple foot care procedures that are now being undertaken by people who are not specialists. That is good value for money. The assertions of Opposition Members that there is a massive removal of people from NHS podiatry services is simply not true. Like the Opposition's announcements yesterday from the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, their figures just do not add up.

    Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Can my hon. Friend assure me that we have enough training places for chiropodists and podiatrists?

    Dr. Ladyman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Since 1997, there has been a 33 per cent. increase in the number of people training for this speciality.
     
  32. Transcript of Scottish Parliament Session

    Health Professionals (Regulation) (PE802)

    The Convener
    : Petition PE802, from Mark Russell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to express its deep concern that, despite the fact that health is a devolved matter, regulation of health professionals is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Mark Russell is here to make a brief statement in support of his petition and is joined by Jacqui Baggaley.

    Mark Russell: Good morning. I start by saying something that most of you already know: life is all about choices. One of the first important choices that we make is what our job will be when we leave school. Some 25 years ago, my choice of career was podiatry—or chiropody as it was called then. I trained about a mile and a half away from this building, at the other end of Holyrood Park, at the Edinburgh Foot Clinic and School of chiropody in Newington. After three years of full-time study I graduated with a diploma in podiatric medicine, which allowed me entry on to the state register. That meant that I was allowed to wreak havoc in the National Health Service, in a manner of speaking.

    State registration was the benchmark for employment in the NHS, with good reason. Back in 1979, I could have chosen to take a correspondence course in chiropody and I could have graduated as a qualified chiropodist after just three weeks. I could have chosen not to have taken any course at all. There was nothing to prevent me from sending away for a set of instruments from one of the many medical suppliers, hanging a sign at my bedroom window, starting to wreak absolute havoc on the public at large and charging them into the bargain. Until 2002, there was no effective regulation to prevent bogus practitioners from calling themselves chiropodists or podiatrists and setting themselves up in private practice. The NHS demanded a benchmark for employment, but there was none in the private sector.

    In 2002, the Westminster Parliament created the Health Professions Council, a new registrar that regulates 13 health professions from speech and language therapists to physiotherapists and podiatrists. One of the tasks that the Government set the body was to offer the public greater protection by regulating the professions that fell outwith the remit of the old regulator. Legislation was passed to protect the titles "chiropodist" and "podiatrist", so that only those who held recognised qualifications from approved institutions could be registered under those names. However, an important consideration had to be taken into account. What about those people who were currently lawfully engaged in employment as podiatrists who had not undertaken the recognised course of training? It was proposed that those people would undergo a process called "grandparenting", whereby they would undertake some form of examination or test of proficiency to ensure that they met basic, safe and effective clinical standards.

    However, the Health Professions Council has interpreted the legislation very loosely. There is no test of competency and there is certainly no examination to ensure that those practitioners meet basic, safe clinical standards. When applicants with no training apply to join the HPC register, they must be accepted. All that they have to do is to supply a character reference, a health reference, a statement that they have derived some of their income through the practice of podiatry in three of the past five years and a certificate of indemnity insurance, which any member of the public could buy through most insurance brokers. Those applicants do not need to meet the standards of proficiency that apply to graduate practitioners. All that is required is for them to avoid any statement that might indicate that their practice is unlawful, unsafe or ineffective.

    To date, more than 1,000 applicants have been approved for registration under the grandparenting scheme. That means that those people can practise in the NHS on equal standing with a university honours graduate who studied for four years. We are comparing no training and no test of competence with four years of training and four sets of end-of-year examinations. If members were a high-risk diabetic with a complex foot problem, which practitioner would they feel comfortable sitting in front of in a surgery chair? Before 2002, people could have been assured that the practitioner would have come from the latter category, in the NHS at least. Now, they cannot tell.

    During the debate on podiatry in the Scottish Parliament last year, Mike Rumbles made an important point. He said:

    "For many years, the professional image of chiropodists and podiatrists has been dogged by the fact that there has been a problem in respect of closure of the profession—anyone has been able to set themselves up as a chiropodist with the minimum of training. They cannot practise within our national health service, but the general public do not know that. Graduate entry has been required for state registration for some time, but that has not helped to clarify in the public's mind exactly who is a qualified chiropodist and who is not."

    He went on:

    "If one looks in the 'Yellow Pages'—the first port of call for many people—to find a qualified chiropodist or podiatrist, one sees that some adverts helpfully have a display advert that states:

    'The British Chiropody and Podiatry Association.
    The Practitioners listed below are all fully qualified and can be consulted without referral by a doctor. Always ensure your chiropodist is qualified.'

    A helpful warning to unsuspecting members of the public—that they should 'Always ensure your chiropodist is qualified'— does not tell them that those chiropodists are not state registered and are not qualified to work in the NHS. That is deliberately misleading and almost dishonest."
    —[Official Report, 28 April, 2004; c 7856.]

    Sadly, I would advise Mike Rumbles today that the problem has been compounded. Unfortunately, we cannot now differentiate which of those practitioners has undertaken a graduate route to practise. The laxity of the grandparenting process has undermined the whole ethos of safe and effective practice. We do not know which practitioners admitted to the register since 2002 are competent in their work other than through the fact that they have not yet been sued. Is that the basis on which we allow people to practise health care today?

    No one likes regulations and it might seem strange to members that two podiatrists should be sitting in front of them arguing for tighter regulations for the profession, but we do so because there is a clear and present danger to the health and welfare of many people if the defective legislation is allowed to persist.
    It was envisaged that, when the grandparenting period ended in July 2005, the podiatry profession would be finally closed and protected, but it will not be.

    Already the correspondence courses are advertising again—this time, for qualifications not to become chiropodists and podiatrists, but to become foot health practitioners—and they have already submitted proposals to the regulator for a second round of grandparenting in a few years' time. What is happening amounts to a reduction in the skills base in the registered workforce and a promise of more to come. That cannot be right for the profession or for the public whom it serves.

    The Holyrood Parliament has a unique opportunity to redress the situation for the people of Scotland. As members are aware, health is a devolved matter to Scotland, yet the regulation of the people who deliver that health care in Scotland's NHS has been reserved to Westminster. It seems a glaring anomaly that the responsibility for delivering good, safe and effective health care lies with this legislature when the Scottish Parliament has no authority to determine the qualifications or the competence of the people who undertake to provide that care on our behalf.

    However, I am encouraged by the words of the First Minister, Jack McConnell. On the "Today" programme on 6 January this year, he said:

    "It would be unhealthy if we created a devolved Parliament in Scotland and then that devolved Parliament did exactly the same things as the Parliament in Westminster. I represent the people of Scotland and I act on their behalf."

    Finally, I return to the issue of choice. The Scotland Act 1998 was passed because the Scottish people made a choice to have a greater say in the affairs of their country. That is the purpose of this building and of the people who are elected to work here on behalf of, and in the best interests of, Scotland's population.

    Ensuring safe and effective standards in the delivery of health—by maintaining robust regulations in a fair and equitable manner—is a matter over which I suggest this Parliament has competency. However, the Parliament will have to make a choice—whether or not to challenge Westminster over reserved matters.

    Again, I am reassured by the words of the First Minister—

    The Convener: Mr Russell, you have run well over your three minutes. I have given you a bit of leeway, so will you please conclude?

    Mark Russell: I am almost finished; this is my concluding paragraph.

    Earlier this month, the First Minister said:

    "There would be little point in having devolution if we simply copied what was happening elsewhere in the country."

    Indeed—and that would be especially true if simply copying allowed the dilution of the qualification standards that are required by health professionals in Scotland. No one can gainsay that the issue is crucial to the protection of the health and welfare of the people of Scotland. I contend that the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament have a duty to the people of Scotland to uphold and safeguard those standards by addressing without delay the legislative and constitutional inequities that this petition outlines.

    John Scott: Good morning, Mr Russell. Have you any evidence that standards in Scotland are falling?

    Mark Russell: Clinical standards?

    John Scott: Yes.

    Mark Russell: You can assume that clinical standards will fall because no mechanisms exist to inspect the premises or competency of people who have been allowed on to the register. To get on to the register, there is self-declaration; in other words, there are no hurdles to overcome and no examinations to be taken.

    John Scott: Are your concerns shared by regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council?

    Mark Russell: I would not think so. Podiatry is quite a small profession, so the issue is very much within the profession.

    John Scott: There are seven United Kingdom statutory regulatory bodies and it would be surprising if there was a huge problem and only you had concerns about it.

    Mark Russell: I have spoken to many colleagues in the medical arena and they are very concerned about lax regulation.

    Campbell Martin (West of Scotland) (Ind): I am probably heavily outnumbered on the committee this morning in my belief that this Parliament should be a normal national Parliament with all the powers of a normal national Parliament.

    The petition has two parts to it. One has to do with the lack of powers of this Parliament and the other has to do with the effective regulation of some health professionals. Again, I am probably outnumbered in thinking that there is a simple solution to the first part—this Parliament becoming an independent Parliament in an independent nation, with all the powers that it needs.

    As for effective regulation, do you have any idea why there is no examination of competence before people are allowed on to the register?

    Mark Russell: I think that it is to do with administrative efficiency more than anything else. During the consultation period when the HPC was being set up, it was envisaged that there would be some test of proficiency. This is the second time that this has happened to our profession. Back in the 1960s, there was a grandparenting period as well and people with minimal training were allowed on to the register. That was when we had the old Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Back then, the council set a test of competency, but this time there is no test.

    Campbell Martin: Has any representation been made to the HPC about its responsibility to ensure that the people on the register are competent and have qualifications?

    Mark Russell: Many representations have been made to the HPC, but we do not seem to be getting very far.

    Campbell Martin: What has been the response?

    Mark Russell: The response has been that the council interprets the legislation in that particular way.

    Jackie Baillie: I do not want to stray too far into constitutional issues. I get the sense—and you can correct me if I am wrong—that the nub of your petition is to do with ensuring that we have the best standards and competency. Does it really matter who regulates that? What do you feel will deliver the improvements that you seek? Irrespective of whether a person lives in Scotland, England, Wales or anywhere else, I would want that person to be treated to the same standard.

    Mark Russell: I would like a test of competency for all grandparented practitioners. There are a couple of issues where the legislation is defective and an issue of competency. There is also the issue of closure of the profession. The legislation has not been effective at closing the profession—we are to have another round of grandparenting in a few years' time and correspondence courses are still running. We can see from the papers that I bought today that one or two colleges undertake to graduate foot health practitioners within three to four months, on the payment of £1,000.

    Jacqui Baggaley: Some of them charge £300.

    Mark Russell: Yes. Therefore, the legislation will not close the profession or protect the public in the longer term. In three or four years, we will have the same problem and another dilution of standards. We must have effective standards. People have gone to college or university for three to four years to do an honours degree, or in my case a diploma. Anyone who practises in the health care arena should undergo a test of competency. If Jackie Baillie or her relatives sought our assistance, she would want to know that we were properly qualified and competent.

    In the various public inquiries in recent years, such as the Shipman, Bristol royal infirmary and Alder Hey inquiries, the emphasis has always been on greater protection of the public interest and public safety, but that is not the case with the legislation that we are discussing, which is a glaring anomaly.

    Jacqui Baggaley: We want members to be aware that there are two ways in which to graduate as a podiatrist. One is to take a four-year honours degree at a recognised university, of which there are two in Scotland that offer those courses; the other is to take a correspondence course. One thousand hours of practical experience is required for a graduate podiatrist in a university, whereas to become what used to be an unregistrable podiatrist, the total requirement, including the correspondence side of learning, is merely 100 hours. However, there is now no difference between the two: the HPC takes in anyone.

    Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab): I share Jackie Baillie's view that we all want to be 100 per cent certain that any practitioner to whom we go will give us good-quality treatment, no matter who we are. I have two questions. First, when petitioners come to the Parliament, they generally mention representations that they have made elsewhere. If you have made other representations, will you tell us about them? If you have not made them, that does not matter. Secondly, in your time as practitioners, what sort of regulatory inspections have you had?

    Mark Russell: I have a correspondence file that is about 5in thick with representations to the highest offices in the land: the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, Nigel Crisp, who is the chief executive of the NHS, and the HPC. We have also made representations through our professional body, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. However, we seem to be running up against a brick wall when it comes to the regulator.
    At present, there are no effective inspections for our profession, although the regulator now requires a minimum number of hours of continuing professional development, such as attending courses or lectures. Until 2002, there was no effective regulation. A person had to be reported, perhaps for professional misconduct, before the regulator intervened. There is no proactive regulation in health care at present; it tends to be reactive.

    The Convener: The committee is joined by Mike Rumbles, who, as Mr Russell said, has an interest in the issue. Do you have anything to add, Mike?

    Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Yes, but before I say anything, I will declare an interest, because I believe in openness and transparency—people need to know where we are coming from. My wife is a graduate member of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. She is an honours graduate and has a practice in Banchory. I have had the information that members have received today for many years.
    I ask members, when they go home or back to their office, to pick up a copy of the "Yellow Pages" and flick through the section on chiropodists. I defy them to tell me which is the registered chiropodist—the proper chiropodist.

    Advertisements in the "Yellow Pages" state that the people are qualified chiropodists and, as has been referred to, there might even be a warning at the bottom saying, "Make sure you get the right one." The situation would be funny if it were not so sad and so serious.

    The issue is not really about constitutional matters—committees work best when we do not get involved in that sort of thing. This is a public safety issue. When a member of the general public contacts a podiatrist or a chiropodist, they expect a certain standard of service and a standard of professionalism. If someone contacts a doctor, a member of any medical profession or a member of a profession allied to medicine, they expect the same level of service, but that cannot exist under the current system. The HPC thought that the approach that it has taken would be a solution but, as the committee has heard, the system is not working. It will certainly not ensure the closure of the profession.

    Reference has been made to the matter being a constitutional issue, but as we have effective control of all aspects of the NHS bar the regulation of the professionals, a major constitutional change is not required. Consider what is happening in the railway industry. The biggest devolution of powers since the establishment of the Parliament is taking place in relation to the railway industry in Scotland. I believe that the situation that the petition raises is similar. We could move in the same direction on the health service as we have on railways.

    The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists has done a great deal in trying to get changes made at Westminster, but its efforts have not been well received. We have a duty in Scotland, given the Scottish Parliament's responsibility for the health service, to push for a change in the sector. The matter is in the committee's remit. I would like the committee to refer the petition to the Health Committee so that we can get some backing for change. If we in the Scottish Parliament feel that that is important, we can pass that on to the UK Parliament and try to secure co-operation in order to achieve change.

    Jackie Baillie: I am not opposed to taking that route ultimately, but the practice of the committee has been to correspond directly with the Executive and to pursue its own investigations first. I would be keen to do that. I am also clear—although I seek the convener's guidance on this point—that the petition is specifically about constitutional matters. However, what I have heard today convinces me to support an investigation to ensure that there are appropriate standards. That has nothing to do with constitutional issues.

    My recommendation is that we write to the Executive to inquire whether there are concerns about a difference in standards and what it, as the provider of the NHS in Scotland, feels should be done about that. That is as far as I would go at this stage.

    I do not want to correct another member, but I point out that not all responsibility for the railways is devolved. Some issues of safety and competency remain with Westminster, so there is not a direct parallel, although I do not close my mind to the proposal. I certainly subscribe to the initial concern, which is about standards rather than about constitutional issues.

    Mike Rumbles: I agree that we do not want any confusion on the matter. I do not disagree with what Jackie Baillie has said. All that I was trying to say is that the current settlement is not set in stone; the UK Government and the Scottish Executive work together to change and tweak the arrangements. That approach could work on this issue.

    The Convener: We must bear in mind the fact that the petition calls for the regulation of health services; I do not think that it specifies podiatry. The issue is about responsibility for regulation being transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament.

    Mike Watson: I agree that we should write to the Executive. I would also like us to write to the HPC to ask why it does not see the issue that Mr Russell and Ms Baggaley have outlined as being a problem. It seems to me that, if we stopped the average man or woman in the street, they would say, "That can't be right." I would like to know what justification there is for the fact that those individuals who are not formally qualified do not have to submit themselves to some kind of test of competency or examination.

    Helen Eadie: I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I would like to clarify one matter. I know that the committee does not impose a restriction on where petitions come from, but I note that your address is in Lytham St Annes, Mr Russell. Are you still based there?

    Mark Russell: Yes. I am from Kirkcaldy and also have a Kirkcaldy address. The petition was originally lodged when I was in Kirkcaldy. I am working down south for a few months.

    Campbell Martin: To go back to what Mike Rumbles said, I do not expect to argue for independence on the basis of this petition, quite honestly. We should ask the Executive whether it would be prepared, if it considers that there has been a lack of UK regulation, to seek the devolution of powers for the regulation of health professionals to safeguard the public interest in Scotland. Would that be possible?

    The Convener: There is no harm in asking that question; it will be interesting to know the Executive's answer. Is the Executive pursuing the devolution of regulation? As Mike Rumbles said, the Executive has pursued the transfer of powers before and there is no harm in asking whether that is something that it intends to do or is considering in this case. That is a legitimate question to ask.

    Campbell Martin: Thank you.

    John Scott: The Scottish Executive recently consulted on the proposal. Presumably it would not have done that unless it was considering updating the legislation.

    The Convener: We can ask for that to be clarified.

    Mark Russell: There is a difficulty with that. If the HPC does not satisfy the concerns that have been raised here, what will you do? Is the Parliament impotent in dealing with such issues?

    Jackie Baillie: I suggest that the matter comes back before the committee. My recollection of the record of the Public Petitions Committee is that it is not impotent, given some of the disposals that have happened because of petitions. I think that we should wait and see.

    Mark Russell: The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    The Convener: Thank you for presenting your petition to us this morning. We will let you know about the responses that we receive.

    *************************************************
     
  33. Graeme Franklin

    Graeme Franklin Active Member

    Mark Russell:
    "Back in 1979, I could have chosen to take a correspondence course in chiropody and I could have graduated as a qualified chiropodist after just three weeks."



    Erm, could you supply evidence of anyone who has actually done this?
    In my experience most people take at least 18 months to finish the theory.


    Graeme.
     
  34. CHIROPODY & PODIATRY course no 63
    Distance education diploma course of 12 lessons with 10 days of practical training. As well as general Chiropody work, you will learn techniques such as wax baths to help with painful muscular and skeletal problems, and farradic stimulation to help with flat foot and associated problems. These treatments are all included in the training you will receive and you will not be expected to pay hundreds of pounds extra for what should be general chiropody knowledge.
    Award. Diploma in Chiropody/Podiatry and the letters SAC. S.Ch./POD., and after the practical training the letters WMSCh.
    Professional Membership. On qualification you are immediately eligible to apply for Full Membership of the Association of Chiropodists & Podiatrists (ACP).


    Twelve lessons and ten days practical training, Graeme. But you still don't need to do that. Just set yourself up as a FHP with no training whatsoever and you too could be included in the next round of grand-parenting. The above is from the WMSC info pack. You want some more?
     
  35. Graeme Franklin

    Graeme Franklin Active Member

    But the question still stands; who has qualified as a chiropodist in 3 weeks?


    Graeme
     

  36. I use the term advisedly and with tongue in cheek, but the fact remains there are people who would have you believe they are 'qualified' podiatrists even though they have undertaken a few days training and in some cases no training whatsoever. That is the problem with the regulatory implementation.

    When grand-parenting was proposed it was envisaged that there would be some measure of competency in place to vet applicants' suitablility for practice, but unfortunately this went by the board, more out of corporate expediency than anything else. Applicants essentially self-certify and it's easy to falsify application forms. Without the rigour of independent examination there can be no basis for confidence in the process. That doesn't help the public, the registered profession or the applicants.

    What is more, without protecting the practise of podiatry - as opposed to protecting titles - we will see a further dilution of the skill base in the coming years as the Foot Health Professionals apply for registration. And remember, you don't have to undertake any course to call yourself a FHP in the first place. What next? Toe and Heel Consultants?

    I'm all for grand-parenting providing it is done as it was in the 1960's and providing the legislation addressed the real problems of closure. The interpretation and implementation of the Order by the HPC does neither.

    Mark Russell
     
  37. Graeme Franklin

    Graeme Franklin Active Member


    I have met hundreds of pods and have yet to meet anyone who completed their training in a few days so your "fact" has yet to be proven. As I have mentioned previously 18 months is about average so I don't know where "a few days" has come from.

    Graeme
     
  38. Robin Crawley

    Robin Crawley Active Member

    Hi Mark!

    This is all very interesting, but I humbly ask what is the point?

    1)Grandparenting has happened. Maybe not in the way that you would have liked, but it has happened. Surely what you are proposing may take away the right to use a protected title from someone to whom whether you like it or not it has been given. The point of Grandparenting was because of European rights legislation wasn't it? IE not taking away people's livelihoods. Scotland is in Europe isn't it?

    2)Like I've said before, and I'll say it again, you won't get the ACT of Podiatry/Chiropody/Footcare whatever protected, only titles. I met the HPC lawyer and asked him directly. There are very few acts that are protected, just titles. The ACT of Dentistry for example is not protected, there is nothing to stop me calling myself the tooth man tomorrow and doing toothcare, I just am not allowed to call myself a Dentist and so wouldn't get any NHS work... Have you asked the HPC's legal department about this?

    3)Foot Health Professionals etc: The HPC can protect whatever titles it likes, and it IS the law that ANY new protected title will have a 2 year Grandparenting period. That is how the legislation is set up. If Foot Health Professional is protected the HPC will be looking at what makes a Chiropodist/Podiatrist different from a Chiropodist. ~I asked that one as well.

    I understand your point of view, although I do feel (and please don't slap me) that it is to some extent driven my ones who feel cheated that the Grandparented Pods have the same legal status as those who are University trained. It HAS happened.

    What I do feel the HPC has achieved is that CPD is now mandatory, so at least everyone must keep their 'skills' uptodate and that they must be able to prove that they still practice their profession to stay on the register. No once qualified always qualified.

    The HPC is quite transparent and accessible and all can read their decisions etc on their website (a new one will be appearing sometime soon), and we all are eligable (whether grandparented or not) to take part in the HPC process if we are registrants, by becoming Partners (when there are vacancies) or dare I say it standing in the HPC Council Elections, and thus being able to influence the Chiropody/Podiatry regulatory process.

    On that note I feel that current HPC Council members have done a good job.

    Personally I think your efforts are too late. Why not direct your considerable energies into improving on what there is rather than what may or may not be?

    Cheers,

    Robin.

    PS I am a fan of a lot of your stuff, but not this, oh and I won't re-start the thread about fees again (Well not tonight) :D
     
  39. C Bain

    C Bain Active Member

    Political Developments.

    Hi Robin,
    Thank you for bringing back an act of reality into this thread. At the risk of getting my hand slapped I also find a drift away from that which IS rather than that which might have been!

    Never mind the Scottish Parliament, what about the Privy Council! I knew this sort of thing would happen living in a Disunited Kingdom. I'm becoming more English by the day and less British as the time after 1998 passes???

    Turning the clock back may work in Scotland but as a Northern Englishman I feel we are locked into the statuesque. The worry is that somebody in Whitehall may start making it up as they go along rather than by Act and Statute!!!

    No, Grandparenting is here to stay I think and one day someone will define 'Chiropodist' and 'Podiatrist' which would have been done in an Act of Parliament before any of this could have started, but no it had to be a Statutory Instrument, (or should that be an 'Order in Council'?), didn't it!

    Regards,

    Colin Bain.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2005
  40. Dawn Bacon

    Dawn Bacon Active Member

    Hi Robin
    With reference to your post, not wishing to cause an argument but actually the act of dentistry is protected as well as the title. It is (to my knowledge) the only profession to enjoy such protection under the law. We should be so lucky eh!
    Best regards, Poll.
     

Share This Page