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.

FHPs and Podiatrists - who does what?

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by davidh, Dec 12, 2005.

  1. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Hi all,
    We are currently looking at adding FHPs to our client-list for Courses and Workshops. After feedback from a successful FHP (thanks Lynda), I can see the direction we will probably take, but what do others think?

    What should FHPs be doing and not doing?
    What is the cut-off line between Podiatry and FHP treatment?

    With Lynda's help we have identified an area which I believe could take a newly-qualified FHP into profit within a month or so of starting Practice, provided they don't buy loads of equipment and supplies which they probably don't need, and they don't go down the "leaflet the planet" road :eek: .

    What do you think?

    Regards,
    davidh
     
  2. C Bain

    C Bain Active Member

    FHP. Registration?

    Hi David,

    A repeat question from your own site,

    Have we any information on FHP. Registration from Alliance or HPC. or is this still an on going saga? What and who does what needs to be defined before detailed progress can be made here perhaps?

    Worth another twirl now anyway!

    Regards,

    Colin.
     
  3. DAVOhorn

    DAVOhorn Well-Known Member

    re What is an FHP?

    Dear David,

    as neither you nor anybody else knows what an FHP is or even what they are deemed competent to t/t then i would suggest you kiss good bye to this profitable activity.

    Also just because it may be a profitable avenue for an FHP to follow does not mean that an FHP can be deemed competent to practise in that area.

    FHP as you well know is not a Chiropodist or Podiatrist so as a Chiropodist Podiatrist why are you involved in the training of groups who are not.

    I know this is coming down to semantics but i feel the only reason for the existence of FHP is:

    profit

    Otherwise the commercial trainers would have embraced HPC reg and either shut up shop or allied themselves to one of the recognised training schools and charged for the privilege.
    This has not happened hence the need for a new title to stay in business and FHP is the outcome.

    So it comes down to your moral values, do you sell training knowledge and skills to therapists and allow them to t/t the public for profit using those learnt skills, or do you confine your training to HPC reg Podiatrists and Chiropodists.

    Simple really.

    David
     
  4. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi David (and Colin),

    David, you wrote
    "FHP as you well know is not a Chiropodist or Podiatrist so as a Chiropodist Podiatrist why are you involved in the training of groups who are not."

    I'm only going to answer this one once - it may as well be now.
    FHPs are an established part of UK foothealth, like it or not, agree with it or not. I believe that the CPD offered to FHPs is, generally, pretty poor, which is why I want to offer something better. The training will not make FHPs into Podiatrists.
    I have stated publicly before now that I'm not interested in training FHPs to take casts or prescribe orthoses - that still stands.


    Now, a question for you.
    When your Line Manager, or Chief Podiatrist, or whoever, asks you to help train NHS Footcare Assistants (FCA) to trim nails and callous, even though you know that the FCA can turn around tomorrow and start private practice doing the same thing, are you really going to turn around and say "no way!"?

    Back to the questions, which were:

    What should FHPs be doing and not doing?
    What is the cut-off line between Podiatry and FHP treatment?

    For starters, I believe all UK Pods should be doing Biomech (not just the over-the-counter sissy stuff , but the real thing - casted, prescription orthoses, and using injected local anaesthetics.
    What do others think?

    Regards,
    davidh
     
  5. DAVOhorn

    DAVOhorn Well-Known Member

    re FCA's

    dear David,


    My PCT does not have any FCA's as we no longer see that caseload that would support the use of ancilliary staff.

    So this is not a problem for me.

    The SOCAP have just issued a directive that no member may be involved in the training of non HPC reg practitioners .

    So this could be contentious for those people who are members and who provide training to all and sundry.

    So still the nonsense of HPC reg and non HPC reg goes on.

    regards David
     
  6. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    David.
    You wrote
    "The SOCAP have just issued a directive that no member may be involved in the training of non HPC reg practitioners ."

    Excellent news, and about time, because I know for a fact that SCP members were involved in training FCAs to cut nails and trim callous until relatively recently.
    Actually, here is a quote from a letter in the Sept 05 SCP Journal, entitled Basic foot courses for carers are a disgrace.
    "Imagine my horror when I learned that less than a month before closure occurs, that NHS staff are conducting courses in basic foot care for carers in local authority residential homes".


    So with the SCP banning thier members from doing this any more, it would seem that only SMAE and the Alliance are training people from scratch to become FHPs/scalpel-weilding FCAs.

    Regards,
    davidh
     
  7. andymiles

    andymiles Active Member

    so many issues, so little time

    if you are not HPC registered you should not be using a scalpel no matter what title you decide to annoint yourself with to try to Circumnavigate the legislation

    FCA's should not be trained in callus removal with a scalpel, i would absolutely "turn round and say no way" should i be requested to do so (which is unlikely in the extreme)

    basic footcare courses for carers are a whole different kettle of fish from providing training for so called FHP's - i feel waters are being muddied here


    and on to biomechs, you say:-

    "For starters, I believe all UK Pods should be doing Biomech (not just the over-the-counter sissy stuff , but the real thing - casted, prescription orthoses, and using injected local anaesthetics.
    What do others think?"

    I think i must only provide the sissy stuff as my casting technique has never involved the use of local anaesthetics!
     
  8. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Andy,
    The letter I quoted goes on to say "finally the other three homes in the area have refused my advances as "their staff have all been trained to deal with routine chiropody matters by NHS staff""".
    Pod Now, Sept 05, page 38.

    I believe Ms Papanicola (SCP Council Member) was quite vociferous in her condemnation of NHS-trained scalpel-wielders last year. It certainly happened in some Trusts - could be still happening for all I know.

    So, to put the record straight. The SCP has carried a letter from a disgruntled member - excerpt above, which reads to me very like the NHS-trained carers are doing a little more than cutting non-path nails. Additionally it is, I've no doubt, a matter of record about what Ms Papanicola said at Council. - no muddying of the water then!

    I am absolutely not getting at the SCP here - just putting the record straight.

    Anyway, back to the questions, which are:
    What should FHPs be doing and not doing?
    What is the cut-off line between Podiatry and FHP treatment?

    Cheers,
    davidh
     
  9. David

    I have been following the various discussion surrounding FHPs and assistants with some interest as it highlights a number of issues surrounding podiatry practice and service provision in the U.K.

    A more pertinent question would be, is it ethical and proper for society to allow independent training establishments to offer courses without scrutiny or inspection by the relevant authorities such as the QAA? The whole purpose of the Health Professions Order was to regulate all health professionals in an attempt to protect the public. It could be argued, successfully in my opinion, that the HPC has failed to uphold this principle as clearly the legislation was flawed. We do have protection of title, but we had protection of title before with the CPSM with the term STATE Registered Chiropodist/Podiatrist – now we have HPC Registered Chiropodist/Podiatrist instead. Nothing has changed in that respect and the commercial training establishments continue as before.

    This, of course, leads us to another question: why is there still a market for these people? To answer that, we have to reflect on the established podiatry profession and ask ourselves if we contribute in some way to the current situation.

    If podiatry wishes to capture the whole foot health market – and I see no reason why it shouldn’t – it has to address the various inequities that are currently manifest. FHPs and the unregistered practitioner only exist because there is a demand for their services – a demand fuelled by a ludicrous discharge policy pursued by the NHS combined by a reluctance of private practitioners to provide an affordable alternative service. The underlying problem is, of course, the two distinct models of practice where podiatry delivers its care – the public service and the private service. There is a clear separation in the way we channel our care and one that need not exist, for it is that dichotomy that has been the root of the problem for as long as I can remember.

    Suppose podiatry practice was established in such a way that it encompassed both markets – publicly and privately funded care. The State paid the practitioner for certain agreed treatments and the remainder of our care was charged to the patient – either directly or through an insurance scheme. Treatment of common foot disorders, palliative care – including simple nail care attracted a reasonable fee – say for arguments sake £15.00. Would clinicians be so keen to discharge these patients to the voluntary sector or encourage the patient to attend a FHP? I doubt it.

    What of the role of assistants in such a scheme? Would I endorse them? You bet I would – to prepare the surgery, assist the patients, undertake administrative tasks – all the menial jobs that take me away from doing what I do best – providing hands-on care. Using assistants in that way would quadruple my output and boost my income stream considerably. I might delegate certain clinical tasks to my assistants providing they operate under my absolute direction and responsibility, but I would not like to see them operate independently or with any degree of autonomy as this would only erode my share of the market, which as a businessman, I would consider negligent to say the least.

    I would further argue that there is no such thing as “social nail care” – a term coined by NHS management to justify the discharge policy that has been prevalent for some years. A few years ago I had one such patient who was earmarked for discharge on the basis that they were “low risk”. The patient was an elderly lady who relied on the podiatry service to maintain her toenails as she could no longer manage that care herself due to her arthritic hips. During her consultation she remarked that two days previous, both her feet had started to “go numb”. The following day the neuropathy had spread to the rest of her feet and she had lost motor function in her forefoot as well. When she attended the clinic she had difficulty walking and on taking her history it transpired that she had been unwell since receiving her influenza vaccination three weeks previously. Guillain Barré Syndrome is a difficult diagnosis to make, but in her case it was the correct one – confirmed after a quick referral to the neurology department of the local general hospital. Would an assistant or a volunteer from Age Concern have been able to make that clinical judgment correctly? Would a FHP be any better?

    We have a highly skilled workforce in podiatry that provides a wide range of care across the professional spectrum. We do our patients a grave disservice if we dilute the quality of that workforce by allowing badly trained and unregulated practitioners or volunteers, the ability to access that market. But to change the situation we have to radically change the way we work not to mention the attitude (and low self-esteem) some of us have towards ourselves and what we do.

    Kind regards

    Mark
     
  10. David

    I just wanted to add an afterthought to the previous post. I mentioned that private practitioners were reluctant to provide an affordable service for elderly footcare. I should have said an understandable reluctance. As has been pointed out on many previous occasions, private practice is a business with many (and increasing) overheads. Why should it subsidise the NHS? It shouldn't. But from the patient's perspective, especially many elderly who exist solely on the State pension, a realistic fee charged by an experienced specialist is simply out of the question. In my view, that is why we have seen the emergence of low-skilled inexpensive practitioners who are willing to undercut the established practitioner by a wide margin.

    If the profession wants to capture the whole foot health market and retain a high-income stream it must look at alternative ways of charging. My own preference would be to lobby government to support general podiatric care in a more cohesive way than it does at present. I do not believe we should sacrifice our standards, nor do I believe we should delegate elderly care to volunteers or surrender it to unregistered and unregulated practitioners. Therefore the challenge for us is to design a system of practice that supports our professional aspirations whilst providing value for money for the government and a first class, affordable service for our patients.

    Piece of cake really.

    BW
    Mark
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2005
  11. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Mark,
    You wrote
    "If the profession wants to capture the whole foot health market and retain a high-income stream it must look at alternative ways of charging. My own preference would be to lobby government to support general podiatric care in a more cohesive way than it does at present. I do not believe we should sacrifice our standards, nor do I believe we should delegate elderly care to volunteers or surrender it to unregistered and unregulated practitioners. Therefore the challenge for us is to design a system of practice that supports our professional aspirations whilst providing value for money for the government and a first class, affordable service for our patients."

    You are aware that I agree with this completely. The only opposition to this plan seems to have been from training establishments (who have vested interests) and factions of the SCP. The latter would seem to have a particular and perculiar interest in mantaining the current status quo.
    Anyway, I was interested to see that SCP Council wasted time debating whether SCP members should be calling themselves "doctor" or not, at the Council meeting 7-8 July 05. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns!
    :eek:

    Cast your mind back a couple of years.
    What did you, I, Bill Liggins and a few others prophesy would happen to the UK profession, in particular Private Practice, over the next few years?
    Wasn't it something about "we had better start determining our own future, because we are going to see many. many more private practitioners (competition) coming onto the playing-field"?

    The sad thing is, the people this affects are the very ones who won't listen.
    Regards,
    davidh
     
  12. andymiles

    andymiles Active Member

    i have misplaced my copy of that months journal so have not read the whole of the letter so i am happy to be corrected if i am wrong but i notice that it does not state directly that NHS staff were training carers to use scalpels.
     
  13. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    As a grandparented pod I see a three part dilemma to this issue:

    1. Should private colleges be continuing to train FHP’s since the protection of the title chiropodist / podiatrist?
    My view is no.

    After all the debate and battle to get everyone to as level a playing field as possible with HPC registration (involving great efforts by these colleges) I consider the continuation of new cohort FHP training to be, at best, a cynical action.
    I have said this elsewhere and I honestly feel that people being taken onto FHP courses now are not necessarily being given as full a view of the situation before them as they may need.

    2. What about the existing FHP’s? This is interesting because in our branches we have a mix of FHP’s and Pod’s. It was a deliberate choice on the part of our branch to recognise that many had come into this work in the same way as ourselves and that it would be wholly wrong of us to deny that or deny them membership. I have no problem with this. Most of them were in training before and were practising before HPC registration came into being and are absent from the HPC register, in a good number of cases, because of the lack of years safe practice criteria.

    To support the existing FHP’s in their work and development is important, not least because we do not want to go down the old roads of us and them, for surely the more positive way to deal with this is to bring people along in their skills even motivate them to work towards degree level training.

    3. What about people starting FHP training from now on. I do not agree with it.
    It is, however, the reality at the moment. This being the case we do better to help delineate roles that are workable and try and define the role of FHP in private practice. Hopefully working together like this is to the good of all, to revert to the old us and them serves no useful purpose.

    I could understand FHP’s being dissatisfied with my reply but it is based in part on many years of encountering us and them situations and awareness that when new into a profession we are not always aware of the hidden agendas etc.

    I can work with this approach whilst pushing for a end to FHP training

    Over all, however, there should be as strong a voice as possible towards closure of practice rather than protection of title.

    Ian
     
  14. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    The letter I quoted goes on to say "finally the other three homes in the area have refused my advances as "their staff have all been trained to deal with routine chiropody matters by NHS staff""".
    Pod Now, Sept 05, page 38.

    I believe Ms Papanicola (SCP Council Member) was quite vociferous in her condemnation of NHS-trained scalpel-wielders last year. It certainly happened in some Trusts - could be still happening for all I know.

    So, to put the record straight. The SCP has carried a letter from a disgruntled member - excerpt above, which reads to me very like the NHS-trained carers are doing a little more than cutting non-path nails. Additionally it is, I've no doubt, a matter of record about what Ms Papanicola said at Council. - no muddying of the water then!


    Andy,
    The letter does not directly mention scalpels. It does mention dealing with routine chiropody matters. this has to be more than the routine trimming of non-path nails surely?
    Care to comment about Ms Papanicola (SCP Council Member) was quite vociferous in her condemnation of NHS-trained scalpel-wielders last year?
    Cheers,
    davidh
     
  15. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Ian,
    Thank you for your candid and straightforward observation.

    In my opinion you portray an accurate picture of the foot business in the UK from "the other side of the fence".

    You wrote
    "To support the existing FHP’s in their work and development is important, not least because we do not want to go down the old roads of us and them, for surely the more positive way to deal with this is to bring people along in their skills even motivate them to work towards degree level training."

    Good common sense, and I would hope people view it as such.
    Regards,
    Davidh
     
  16. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Hi Ian
    You make a clear statement of your position and I totally agree with your conclusion that we need a strong voice calling for closure of the profession.

    What I cannot understand though is how working with FHPs can help support this objective, it seems to me the opposite.

    It was said by a prominent employee of the HPC, that their remit was to regulate the profession as a means to ensure 'public safety'. The only way to change the 'law' from protection of title to protection of practice/closure, was to prove that Parliament's intentions were being frustrated, allowing the regulator to go back to government and ask for greater powers.

    It seems to me that if a proportion of HPC Pods 'embrace' FHPs it would weaken our argument.

    As far as working to persuade the private colleges to cease their business, I truly cannot see it happening. As you say

    ' I consider the continuation of new cohort FHP training to be, at best, a cynical action.'


    My sincere apologies to any FHP this debate may offend, my reply is not a statement about any individual, but I hope an important discussion about the 'profession'.

    (David sorry I wrote this before your reply )

    Bob
     
  17. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    David,

    As mentioned somewhere along this thread you 'cast your web wide'.

    Also you asked me 'what better way of gaining information'.

    Having now gained that information do you think it would be courteous to post your conclusion, posted your own site on the other sites you have 'contacted'.

    Bob
     
  18. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Bob,
    You said
    "It was said by a prominent employee of the HPC, that their remit was to regulate the profession as a means to ensure 'public safety'. The only way to change the 'law' from protection of title to protection of practice/closure, was to prove that Parliament's intentions were being frustrated, allowing the regulator to go back to government and ask for greater powers."

    Without specifics (names, times, dates etc) this is simply rumour.
    Unhappily I and many others have heard variations on this theme throughout my 34 years in the foot business.

    Can you supply specific details (who said what, when, and where)?
    Regards,
    davidh
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2005
  19. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Bob,
    I have no problem with this. As with the same post on this site, there were no real answers, but we want to talk to FHPs and to that end I intend holding a small conference for FHPs next year.
    This is not, repeat not, to train new FHPs, nor to teach FHPs how to become podiatrists in all but name.

    The full story is here

    http://davidmhol.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=fhps&action=display&thread=1134382729

    Regards,
    davidh
     
  20. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Hi Bob

    Thanks for the reply

    You said:

    It seems to me that if a proportion of HPC Pods 'embrace' FHPs it would weaken our argument.

    This is I think something of the dilemma and at one level it affects us all. I do not want any further private new cohort FHP training to occur yet by supporting them I appear to be embracing the process.

    I can only restate ( as you have acknowleged) that I disagree with the process but that to to leave those who have come through that route in somewhat of a lurch is, in my view, unprofessional of us.

    My approach is that to win the argument we must not bury our heads in the sand, hope it will go way with time, nor must we slip into the us and them attitude. In fact I would say this is not about winning the argument. It is more about helping those FHP's, who train until we can close the profession, determine a good, recognised and honourable role in the foot health care business. Respecting that role wuith our support.

    This may seem naive but it strikes me as positive and somewhat proactive. I do not see this anywhere else at the moment. If the thing ever moves back into an us and them I would suggest it will mainly be the fault of podiatrists and our podiatric leaders not FHP's.

    Hope this seems clearer.

    Cheers
    Ian
     
  21. Ian

    I’m not all that sure how much of a problem it really is. After all, the State Registered profession has lived with non-registered practitioners for decades and although the accusation could be made that the public were being deceived, I always preferred to let my own standards of care speak for themselves. If you can’t win the argument on quality where it really matters – with the patient – then to me, it seemed a poor defence to rely on regulation and registration with a quasi-governmental body like the CPSM or HPC.

    The public aren’t daft – they know full; well when someone has undertaken a rigorous course of study and is passionate and professional about the work that they do. And when it comes down to cost – you get what you pay for at the end of the day.

    Ideally we would have a level playing field – and that includes tertiary education – where students, practitioners and the general public have some degree of confidence in the system. But we don’t. SMAE and the other commercial organisations had an opportunity to “join the club” and host podiatry courses to the accepted standard, but they failed to do so and have circumvented the regulatory process. What does that tell you about their standards or ethics or morals? Sure the universities are competing for business nowadays, but at least the prospective student can be certain of a baseline in standards of education, measured by the QAA, the professional body and the HPC, that the commercial trainers cannot provide.

    As I have alluded to in the previous post, these people exist only because there is a vacuum in the market as a result of the professional establishment’s reluctance to reform and develop our system of care. It is not just the fault of the professional hierarchy within the various Councils – it is the fault of each and every one of us who says they “can’t be bothered” or “we’re happy with our lot”. Consider the podiatry profession in the USA. Would they tolerate any form of territorial encroachment. Do they allow reciprocal practising rights for overseas podiatrists?

    Consider also the dental and medical (or legal or accountancy or architects or ad infinitum) professions and compare them to ours then ask yourself how they managed to develop to the extent that they did. They were focussed and determined and unified. And they protected their corner with everything they could muster.

    Could we say the same about podiatry?

    Best wishes

    Mark
     
  22. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    David.

    you replied, without specific names, times and dates, my comments were just 'Rumour'.

    That is rude, I am not in the habit of making up information, neither were the 'facts' crucial to the 'argument'.

    Bob
     
  23. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Ian

    I respect your position, but what is the agenda for 'closure' of the profession.

    Bob
     
  24. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Mark
    Claiming 'cream will always rise to the top' and 'the public are not daft' unfortunately no longer convinces me.

    I totally agree with your comments about the US profession and their defence of 'territory'

    You said 'could we say the same about UK podiatry'. Most definitely NO.

    I attended a NHS training day today and discussed with a lead podiatrist, recent SCP performance 'against' government and the rapidly changing situation of the role of PCTs and commissioning patient care.

    He described the rapid infiltration of 'big companies' mainly from the US providing 'services'. Tonight Kernow Doc (a local charity? providing out of hour GP services,) lost it's contract to a commercial company.

    My NHS college believes the future will be health care 'supermarkets'.

    I challenge all pods out there to come up with one of our 'skills' that can not be performed by another discipline.

    I have come away 'depressed' because I can see the future of Podiatry can be bleak.

    Simply Chiropody was 'a specialism of the foot' by giving up any element of foot care to any other title allows our only reason for existence to be challenged.

    :(

    Bob
     
  25. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Hi BoB

    I have no knowlege of what might be the "agenda" for closure. It is an area way outside my domain.

    With regard to your concern about how other professions might readily be able to do some of our podiatric skills. I agree that there are some that can easily and readily be done. Equally there are some from other disciplins that we may well be able to do. This could be a cross over point in the multidisciplin approach that could be very positive all round. Perhaps in certain areas however,eg diabetes, podiatric knowlege of the impact of this on the foot is more specialised and therefore less easily done by others.

    Many years ago I worked alongside chartered physios, often assessing pts together. There were cross over skills that developed there. More recently I have had opportunity to actually properly develop some aspects of those cross over skills.

    I do not see this as negative but as a potential step forward for podiatry to grow in its capabilities.

    Ian
     
  26. C Bain

    C Bain Active Member

    Redundancy!

    Hi Bob,

    I wish you were wrong about this but look at a few of the facts.,

    1. An orthopaedic surgeon interested in feet has his own speciality already there for him.

    2. Minor surgery such as removal of nails, my doctors up here usually has one amongst themselves who is very good at safely removing ingrowing toe nails! Orthopaedic nurses in PCT's, all part of the service eventually perhaps???

    3. Nails, corns, callus etc. - Redundant in NHS. who have shut the majority of patients out, (Declassified them as patients?),

    1). FHP's cannot wait!

    2). Carers and nurses still been trained or is that what SOCAP is stopping, has it just been banned? How about one of my doctors passing his skills to the nurses, (Nurses to carers!), if they haven't already got them!

    3). Shall we shoot ourselves now or later? Echo's of someone having shot himself in the foot in the not so dim and distant past, already?

    Regards,

    Colin.

    PS. Bob do we need a cheer leader from the Americans to show us how they got it right?

    PPS. Well we have always got Biomechanics if they have enough left in their pension money at the end of the week???

    PPPS. Now Bob, we cannot have David been rude to you here. That's your privilege, To be Rude to David! I've just looked in here and everything is reversed? I'll have to go on the tablets again if this continues!!!
     
  27. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Bob,

    Look up the definition of "rumour" in any decent dictionary.
    You will find that I am actually correct.
    Facts are pertinenet to any argument - surely?

    Cheers,
    davidh
     
  28. George Brandy

    George Brandy Active Member

    I challenge all pods out there to come up with one of our 'skills' that can not be performed by another discipline.

    I therefore challenge you R.E.G to learn skills that are performed by other disciplines. It is time to stop griping and get to grips with massage, manipulation, exercise, ultrasound, interferential, laser, acupuncture.

    I would be quite happy to administer the flu vaccine, fit trusses, apply 3 layer bandaging to varicose ulcers

    Let us expand our skills in a CPD 3D approach and fight back.

    What can I do that no other discipline can do? Be me.

    GB
     
  29. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    The same could be said about most disciplines (eg think about physiotherapy).
    I started a new thread in the General Forum on Who Treats Feet?
     
  30. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    George

    Fair comment but that would not make us Pods.

    Colin long time no hear, biomechanics, everyone is having a bite of the cherry.

    Diabetes, what about the diabetic nurses, sharp debridement, vascular assessment and clinical scientists.

    Come on you can all do better than this.

    Bob.

    David looked it up and I have not changed my mind.
     
  31. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Craig
    probably true, so why do we still claim to be a specialism?

    Bob
     
  32. George Brandy

    George Brandy Active Member

    R.E.G

    Maybe it is time that we as Pods stopped viewing the world through tunnel vision and expand our role, our definition.

    GB
     
  33. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I will pose this question in the thread on 'Who treats feet'

    Lets carry on this dscussion there.
     
  34. Graeme Franklin

    Graeme Franklin Active Member

    Clinical scientists hardly form the mainstream in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetics. They may well be involved in the quality assurance and evaluation of some of the diagnostic tests of DM which is an entirely different matter.

    Regards,
    Graeme
     
  35. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Bob,
    You said
    "probably true, so why do we still claim to be a specialism?"
    My view is that unless we specialise in one area, such as pod surgery, we really aren't a specialism at all."

    Gearge,
    You said
    "R.E.G
    Maybe it is time that we as Pods stopped viewing the world through tunnel vision and expand our role, our definition."

    Absolutely. My work entails gait analysis, casting and fitting prescription orthoses, usually at the request of orthopaedics or pod surgeons.
    I'm good at my job, run my business well, but actually I do little different from an orthotist, or some physiotherapists. I may be a little more focussed on what I do than a multi-skill-ing practitioner?

    I don't really class myself as a specialist, and regard the work I do as something which all pods can and should be doing.

    Regards,
    davidh
     
  36. C Bain

    C Bain Active Member

    Scalpels?

    Hi Andy Miles,

    A late enquiry, I can see Andy your point of view and probably sympathy's with the Law/Rule concerning,

    Quote:- "........ should not be using a scalpel no matter what title you decide to anoint yourself with .........."

    I have heard this before earlier this year somewhere? Can you please tell me where the Law/Rule exists regarding callus removal etc. with scalpels concerning FHP's and the like? I cannot remember seeing it anywhere on HPC. literature!

    Regards,

    Colin.
     
Loading...

Share This Page