Licensing of Foot Health Practitioners

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

This may be the first move to regulate the Foot Health Practitioner in the UK -

http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/100025D45Extendingprofessionalregulation.pdf

It's a draft discussion paper on extending professional regulation that has been put before the Council of the HPC for their approval.

The Council will further discuss at their strategic policies meeting of 10th February 2009.

 

Interesting read. I would not necessarily jump to the conclusion that FHP's will be regulated or licensed. Its not that clear from the document. But, I do detect some cynicism towards FHP's by the HPC and what they have done to circumvent the current regulatory framework:

Maybe the HPC made a mistake of trying to protect titles and not function.

 

Some points I want to make:

The document proposes licensing for a wide spectrum of practitioners, not just FHPs but they are included.

The document must have originated from the Dept of Health - it has been put before the HPC Council for their approval.

The HPC (depending upon their response?) may be expanded and appointed as the regulator to oversee the plan - this is not yet determined.

Adoption of the proposals would certainly confirm ongoing acceptance of the FHP. The passing of the proposed generic test to be set by the appointed regulator would effectively determine the standard for ALL practitioners, FHPs included.

There would then be no need to further define their role. The paper touches upon the subject of expansion within roles by suggesting allowance of addition of skills until the additions posed a threat to the public.

The proposal is for a new protected title (for FHPs and ALL other practitioners who are not on professional or assistant professional registers).

This would have the effect of separating, better defining and taking pressure off the Podiatry title.

FHPs would work under a protected title if the proposal comes to fruition.

 

Cannot see this happening as the title is too generic to protect. Contact with the HPC a week ago stated clearly they would not conisder it.

 

From my reading of the document, it seems clear that the HPC is against a plethora of titles simply because for each protected title, those who don't want to be regulated will simply call themselves something else. This is the point that they labour to make about FHPs. It's interesting to note that they describe the arena of activity as chiropody when FHPs can't use this easily understood 'handle'.

Anyway I do agree that there is considerable confusion out there about all the various titles, not just FHPs and that protection of the public is paramount. The HPC seem to be grasping the nettle and should be applauded for that at least.

Although the Alliance of Private Sector Practitioners operates a volitional register right now, with a CPD requirement etc etc I wonder if it will be threatened by this. The whole thrust of the document seems to me to be the adoption of the title Licensed Healthcare Professional meaning that the need to use the title FHP as a differeniator will disappear.

The whole agenda seems to be to clean up the sector so that the public will be able to assume, correctly that an LHP is 'approved' and no matter what someone calls themselves, and titles will surely still be needed, or else how will the public know what services are on offer. Will the entry onto the LHP register allow FHPs to describe their work as chiropody?

We live as the Chinese say, in interesting times.

 

The only way the profession will ever have closure in the UK is if the HPC protects the profession, and not the title. This is not easy, but many countries have managed to somewhat conclude closure under this pretext.

 

Do we know what is the purpose behind this? Will it cover complementary therapists? Is just another layer of control or is it for the public benefit? Most of the public have no idea what the HPC is or what it want s to acheive. Perhaps I'm just too cynical

 

At least two of the above responses have quoted from the document to illustrate the HPCs attitude towards FHPs.

This document did not originate at the HPC - it has been put before the HPC asking for their approval. HPC is just one of 9 regulators who could take on the licensing role. They are perhaps the natural one to first consider. If they agree to take on the task they will be expanded to be able to cope.

The document is not about FHPs. They are just one of very many practitioners who would come under regulation if the proposal comes to be.

The proposed test would apply to all practitioners, and would be concerned more with communication standards, hygeine standards and record-keeping than the specific work done by each species of practitioner.

FHPs would still need to be trained (to be FHPs), in the same way as a Massage Therapist would need to be trained to be a massage therapist. They would continue to be Foot Health Practitioners or Massage Therapists and would continue to work as such.

The purpose behind all this? It will be done in the name of 'protection of the public' although it is obvious that registration does not protect the public.

A certain amount of cynism is probably healthy. Certainly it will create a further income stream from test centre licensing, test fees, and licensing fees for the government. Taking ALL therapists into account, there will be hundreds of thousands of licensees if the projected plan goes ahead.

Whoever medisrch spoke to at the HPC was talking beyond his/her knowledge because the HPC is set to discuss the draft at its strategic meeting of 10th February 2009. If they accept the new role proposed, the wheels could begin to turn quite quickly.

 

I would like to hear views regarding the discussion paper placed before the HPC proposing the licencing of all unregulated healthcare workers. I personally feel it is a good document, which if implemented and regulated by the HPC would be a step in the right direction for overall public protection. You can view this document by logging onto:

http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/100025D45Extendingprofessionalregulation.pdf

 

Dear All,
I can see some problems in the above discussion paper regarding the HPC's criteria for aspirant groups as it applies to FHPs viz :-

i) "Display a discrete area of activity demonstating some homogeniety"
As every activity that is effected by an FHP is also covered by a podiatrist I cannot see this criteria being fulfilled.
ii) "Apply a defined body of knowledge." ditto.
vi) "Have defined routes of entry to the profession" As no formal entry qualifications are required for any FHP course (apart from the ability to understand English)I cannot see how this criteria can be met.
vii) "Have independently assessed entry qualifications " Ditto
xi) Have fitness to practice procedures to enforce standards in relation to conduct performance and ethics. - I do not known of any of these. If they exist they are not transparent, as the HPC is. As FHPs are not HPC registered then the sanction of striking off is not available. How then can the public be protected from poor performers?

The main problem in regulating FHPs, as I see it, is that they are too similar to podiatrists to be classed as an independent group.

Dido

 

Page 17 of the document reads

"Relationship between professional and licensing regulation
The introduction of licensing would not stop, or hinder, the process whereby an Aspirant Group sought to become a statutorily regulated profession. It can be argued that licensing would indeed facilitate the process, in that an Aspirant Group that was already licensed will more easily be able to demonstrate that many of the prerequisites for statutory regulation have been met."

The proposal is that licensing would be a control mechanism for any practioner including FHPs. Being licenced would not stop an aspirant group making an application for recognition as a profession if they should wish to do so.

Licenced practioners could be 'struck off' by revokation of licence.

As for HPC transparency, there is none .... the HPC are discussing the issue in camera and no minutes have been published from the last two meetings.

 

As I have said before, neither the HPC nor the government can protect function. It is against European law as you cannot take away anyone`s living.

 

Johnpod,
When I said that the HPC was "transparent" I was referring to Fitness to Practice Hearings.
If FHPs wish be classed as an Aspirant Group (for regulation) then they must have a similar mechanism in position. As far as I am aware they do not have this at the moment.
Should they (FHPs) become licensed then I fail to see how taking away the licence would stop them, (or anyone else) continuing to practicise. I am sure we are all very well aware that should any type of control be put in place then other titles would soon spring up to circumnavigate legislation. The HPC are very well aware of this and it is highlighted in the discussion document.
Dido

 

Your argument is convoluted.

The document is self-explanatory for those who will interpret it as written.

The concern is regulator transparency - which is lacking.

 

i don't agree, Johnpod, my "argument" as you put it, stems directly from the document. The HPC put it even more simply by stating that

"Regulation without statute will not deliver appropriate public protection."

If you are concerned about regulator transparency then maybe your professional organisation could approach the HPC about this?

Dido

 

There are two issues, both addressed in the document. There is the issue of regulation (for professionals). Then there is the issue of licencing (for other practitioners). Read again!

Regulation as applied to professionals (and assistant professionals) is deemed 'too expensive' to apply to all practitioners.

The transparency to which I refer is the consideration of the document 'in camera'. Two council meetings have been held but no minutes of the relevant proceedings made public.

 

I find your response rather patronising, Johnpod.
Not all of us are adept at translating "governmentspeak".
Maybe you were a civil servant before you became a podiatrist?
You still have not responded to my suggestion that your professional organisation to put in a complaint to the HPC about "lack of transparency"?
Dido

 

An interesting point. If this did go ahead and FHPs required a licence from the HPC to legally practice, it would mean that any podiatrist struck off the register would not be able to continue to practice as an FHP, as they would need a licence to do so from the HPC.

 

If anyone was struck off they can call themselves anything that they want as long as the Function is not protected. The public at large don't know about the HPC and if anyone offers to do Chiropody at a cheaper price they will not bother about regulation.

Public protection is more of a myth, how many of the general public have complained so far against Podiatrist? Main complaints have come from employers (NHS) which allows an easy way of removing employees.

It would seem that the HPC is part of the NHS Human Resources by just looking at the complaints listed. If the NHS (DH) want FHP (podiatry assistants) they will have them.

It does not matter what we say or think we do not count in the bigger picture.

Chiropodist/Podiatrist/FHP regulated as one? who knows

The circle of confusion will continue to turn, until we all feel dizzy:bash:

 

interesting point.....I am registered with the HPC under the grandparenting scheme. I am now completing my BSc(Hons) so that I can work legally here in Spain. I was advised 2 years ago that Spain only recognises this qualification to be able to practice as a podologa. The difference is defined in the use of the scalpel. "pedicuras" can cut nails, remove hard skin etc as long as a scalpel is not employed. I, however with 12 years experience under my belt am not allowed to work in Spain or use the title until I complete the course. If my qualification is recognised and "protected" by the HPC....and as you say should be recognised in european law. how is it that Spain can and does deny me the right to work freely in the EU ?

 

An interesting question.

It would seem that Spain has a two-tier system of registration for footcare workers..

I do not know the answer to your question, perhaps you could check with the Spanish Embassy in UK and/or raise the query on the Spanish Forum here on Pod Arena?

Dido

 

Hi anybody who is there... I haven't got a clue how to access the thread from any posting can someone tell me how to do it please/
Thanks

 

Functional closure is not allowed under the EEC Treaty. Spain may be acting illegally here.

 

Hi from James of Chandra footcare.

As a FHP who registered their practice on the 14th of November 2010 with the appropiate authorities i have no fear at all relating to being more regulated. At present I am volntarily registered with the SMAE who also cover my indemnity. this is the college that issued me with my qualification and is run by fully qualified and registered Podiatricly and medicaly qualified staff and a Senior Practicioner who is the principle.

I have been challenged in another forum about my credentials due to the fact that my web site contained the wording DIAGNOSE. I do not rush to diagnose anything but as soon as you have advised a customer that they have
athletes foot you have surely made a diagnoses. Providing people with diagnostic reports is not a guarded area is it???

I welcome debate upon this matter and those who have posted my site as a questionable product please have the courage to contact me....I welcome your input.

Thank you and please give me feed back folks....James

 

I believe that James has provided sufficient evidence regarding the FHP role and that of the role of an HPC reg podiatrist.

Ho Hum

Thankyou James

David

 

James,
It is difficult for anyone to give you the feedback you request if the forum to which you refer and your website are not known.

regards

Catfoot

 

From Marc Seale 16-02-2011

There is no intention to formally register FHPs or any currently non registered practitioner. This is likely to be the case for at least 5 years. Voluntary registers are different. For example, membership of a professional body or similar association might be considered voluntary registration.

Bill Liggins

 

chandra footcare.Easily found CATFOOT and I am not sure what Ho Hum means, if the subject bores you do somthing else!!

The person who uses 'another' Podiatry Arena and just named themselves as Lee,could it be Lee Bruce or perhaps Lee Marvin.I was actualy telephoned by a FHP in Notingham who warned me that my WWW site,easily located,was posted as making questionable claims. Personal I have too much actual work to do to enter into all this. Obviously these critics do not have anything better to do.I am not however against open debate,see you on FB and I am on twitter,and if your out there Lee just come out of your corner and let's talk facts,I'm waiting.

 

James,
I did not say "ho-hum" - please try to keep up.

There isn't "another Podiatry Arena" - this is the one and only !

I am not on Facebook or Twitter and my name is not Lee (Marvin, Majors, Bruce or other)

I would debate, but I am not sure what you want to debate.

Then why are you here ?

CF

 

Oh well just have a good evening. That's all I guess I think we just crossed wires or something,my reply was a public one not private.

 

Dear James,

it was me wot sayd HO HUMMMMMM:deadhorse:

Please read your posts and reflect upon the prose that you have written.

David