Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads

Hi all

ive just completed my access course and am looking forward to starting my pod degree. ive noticed that there are foot practioners also who do private work.

Can anybody inform me what ability they have, compaired to a podiatrist?

regards Mark.

none

hope that helps.

not realy,

I wanted to know because their is a lot posts ive read on this site that dont think too well of them, I know their training is not as long as a podiatrists. Ive noticed a college called the (College of Foot Health Practioners) the training is aprox ten months long and they do a few days on the job training.

Your answer you gave does not realy answer my question. What would be the point training for four years including my accesss course if there was no differences. This post is not intended to get any foot practoners backs up, as im sure you can do a good job but when it comes to paient care what are the limitations of a foot health practioner compaired to a podiatrist?

Regards Mark

There is no substitute for degree qualification
Qualification and State Registration HPC registration are the main differences apart from your expertise and understanding of podiatric medicine is second to none as a legitimate Health Professional.
On qualification with a degree you are entitled to become HPC registered. Once HPC (health professions council) registered you can legally use the title Podiatrist or Chiropodist (NOW a protected title and only available to HPC members)
check the website hpc-org.uk (well worth a read and they have a newsletter to sign up to.

Foot practitioners and all other foot practioners who are not HPC registered cannot use the title Podiatrist or Chiropodist, cannot work in the NHS and are not required to do CPD (clinical professional development) - so there the differences between the two can be every different.
Use your own deductions??? if you had a problem with your feet who you would consult a fully degree qualified HPC registered podiatrist/chiropodist or a foot practitioner??

also ask the university there opinion of the differences I am sure you will have an interesting conversation with them?
Good luck with your university course! The only way is up!

One or two facts to correct what has already been said:

There is no such thing as State Registration - this no longer exists. Registration (with the HPC) is all that is on offer. You toe the line and pay your fees and we'll let you call yourself a podiatrist. Step out of line and lose your living.

If you can learn all that is necessary to provide a much needed and much appreciated service that the public want and are prepared to pay for, why spend 3/4 years reading about it? Being on a register means that you can be struck off - do you really want to volunteer for this?

To find out what the College of Foot Health Practitioners offers you need only view their extensive website.


.

Thanks for all the advice but i think i will avoid the College of Foot Health Practitioners,

Ive spent a realy hard year studying at uni with my access course and I have to say I have probably done more this year than the College of Foot Health Practitioners students have done doing there course.

I have to agree there is no substitute for the podiatry degree, I have been on placements watching podiatrist, they realy are highly skilled profesional people who ammazed me with there ability and scope of pratice. even down to the way they handled there patients with all the techical jargon was realy impressive.

Regards Mark

That may be so, although I consider it a little arrogant, since you do not know what the College of Foot Health Practitioners teaches - which is no sinecure. The real reason for me posting again is to point out that an FHP who studied whilst you did your access course will be taught greater business ability and will spend the next three years earning (and pleasing the public). They will also be no worse thought of (by the public).

foot health practitioners (FHP) are not Registered Health Professionals therfore their quality and professionalism to the patient is questionable! Unregistered means unregulated too!!

Would you see a GP who is not registered with their General Medical Council, so why would the public wish to see any other Health Professional who is unregistered!
I know I wouldn't let an unregistered unqualified person near my feet with a Scalpel!

Degree Qualified Podiatrists are very highly skilled professionals with extended scope of practice and there is no substitue for this knowledge.

I did visit the web site of the College of Foot Health Practitioners, so i did get the picture of what its about. I Did not choose podiatry for the money, ive gave up £35K job to take up podiatry, and I dont realy care anymore for money, I would rarther be happy.

there is only so much you can learn about business in a short time. yes your right the public might not think any less of them, but thats maybe because the public are not aware of what they are getting. If I was doing the foot practioners course it would concern me if i was not able to give my clients the care they deserve and this could put there health at risk. Maybe if the foot practioner did not make it clear to the client about there ability they could be sued.

maybe its mainly nail cuts, but what about people who have renal problems would Foot Health Practitioner be able to pick this up?

Writing as a registered degree pod I have to observe that a patient in renal failure can only have the same nail problems as anyone else. And yes, the FHP is trained to assess the patient and recognise the point of referral - just like you.

I post with the intention, not of prolonging this age-old and pointless debate, but of making the point that FHPs have value (presumably in the way that FCAs do? (also currently unregistrable)). I have seen their course and am not impressed with that, but have so far refrained from critism since I have no knowledge of the lectures etc that support the written work.

If you want to do the degree, go for it. You will find out for yourself the final worth of your expenditure of energy. Its up to you in the final reckoning.

Why post on such a topic if your mind is already made up?

Now I was wondering that too...............

Anyway, forget all the rhetoric - the real differences between UK Podiatists and FHPs are:
Pods are legally qualified (not necessarily skilled though, in the case of newly qualified) to administer LA and carry out nail surgery.
Pods have the opportunity to do Imaging CPD (useful as a stand-alone in sports and musculoskeletal podiatry), and other education leading to a qualification in foot surgery.
Pods can obtain employment in the NHS - FHPs can not.

FHPs are qualified to do some diagnosis, carry out palliative care, and remove VPs.

Both can undertake biomech training (but please note, Chiltern Mondial only provides biomech training for Pods), and cryosurgery training, and both carry professional indemnity insurance.
Not all Pods possess a degree, many having trained by the old 3-year Diploma route, but many FHPs do, abeit in another discipline.

Yawn.......

Thanks for the advice.

Regards Mark

Hi all


Harold Shipman was registered and regulated was he not ??

Individual clinical competence is all that matters irrespective of degree's or qualification.
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Derek

I must be getting old....

Registered or not - yoo don't look profeshinal if yoo carnt spel!

Oh dear David you are at it again.

As a self promoting ‘academic’, why do you continually flout the rules?

First please declare your interests: you are on the editorial board of the journal of the largest ‘private’ trainer of FHPs and are actively involved in their branch ‘training’ days.

Second, nice that again you take the opportunity to promote ‘Chiltern Mondial’ (where on earth did you get that name from) but why do you not teach FHPs your version of biomechanics? And you missed the opportunity to promote your new slimming course for Pods, the one that uses the Pod/FHP patient base to enhance income?

Third lets look at your ‘facts’, unsupportable as ever.

1. Denigrating newly qualified Pods is unacceptable. They have been judged against a standard, who are you to question that standard?

2. What is Imaging CPD? At least you recognise that a degree can be an entrance to further education, an MSc perhaps or the biggy a PhD. (By the way when was (research) ever part of the MSc designation? And when are we going to read your published work?)

3. ‘FHPs can do ‘some’ diagnoses, so which bits can they not do?

4. ‘FHPs can do palliative care’, is that a way of describing 4 to 6 weekly cut and come again abuse of the client because they have no concept of cure?

5. At LAST someone is qualified ‘to remove verruca’, so I can now send all my VPs to an FHP, because I do not claim to be able to remove VPs.

6. What is your problem with the 3 year Diploma? You did it, it’s an historic thing, FHPs are the present.


The thing about yawning is it’s contagious, and your and DTT’s defence of the FHP represents a complete turn around from your positions before the HPC came into force.

There was great hope within the profession that the HPC, grandparenting and protection of Title would unite the profession and allow it to truly be professional, and move forward. The emergence of the FHP has made a mockery of all those hopes.

Bob

Yes, Jane. You are getting old. There's a lot of it about. When you've heard it all before... We are all into self-promotion so that really does'nt stick as a fair critism. I have also grown tired of hearing about opportunities missed at grandparenting, etc. The way it was set up and the people involved could have led to no other conclusion. I know because I was there.

Hi Bob,
I don't intend answering your post since we've both been over most of this ground many times before.

As far as a research MSc goes, yes thats factual too. It may be unique to
Durham Uni, I don't know, but I can assure you that I did a research MSc (the equiv degree at Newcastle upon Tyne Uni - part of Durham until the Med school broke away in the 60's - is an MPhil). It says Research MSc on the nice bit of paper Peter Ustinov presented me with in Durham Cathedral :) , so it must be right.

I can also, if I wish, use the designation "Dunelm" after my letters. This denotes the calibre of University (in this case Durham). You may already know that "Oxon" denotes Oxford, and "Cantab", Cambridge. I'm also a Foundation member of St Chad's College, Durham University.
(I think that explains my research MSc fairly thoroughly? ).

You could, if you really wanted to, do a search in the British Journal of Pod Med (older SCP publication) for Comcare - an NHS experience (may have that title wrong, since it was published a good few years ago), and A comparison between the vaso-active effects of mepivacaine and lignocaine, a pilot study.
I also did a joint Paper in The Foot some time ago on nail deformation and terminal phalanx shape. Let me know and I'll dig out the ref.

Interesting that you don't mention one of the major differences. How much clinical training to FHPs carry out before they "graduate". Last i heard it was 1000 hours for the degree program. Do tell how many hours supervised clinical time does the College of FHPs offer for its qualification?

And how does work? You'll be fine as long as you've got one of the conditions on the rather limited syllabus?

And i echo REG's question about the VP's. Can you share the secret of "removing" them please? Cos if you mean excising doing it without an LA could be considered unkind (or indeed aggravated assault!)

So with reference to the origional question
A newly qualified podiatrist has greater knowledge of a wider range of topics, better training in general medicine, far greater clinical experiance, greater scope of practice better access to further training and is generally more knowledgable and expert in treating podiatric pathologies than a newly qualified FHP.

A nice contentious statement for David to consider.

Regards

Robert

Hi Robert,
I have no problem whatsoever with this last statement. Why would I?

Please don't post any further comments for my attention folks.
I have absolutely no intention of entering into (yet another) "our training/professional body is better than yours" - type discussion. These always degenerate into mud-slinging (see Roberts last post - next one down - "with the steady stream of hatchet jobs we have to fix coming from people who claim to be as well qualified as us following 2 weeks worth of practical training" ), do nothing for our image, nothing for the profession as a whole, and damn little for my patience .

Quote: (Craig Payne - I think the call was from Euston Station, in response to comments from another UK podiatrist).
"What is it with UK Podiatrists?".

What indeed.........

Why indeed? Nice to know we're on the same page! I was expecting you to disagree!*

Oh shame. The fact that there have been better than 20 posts on this thread in 3 days suggest that at least some people still consider it a "live issue". I've always thought having more than one viewpoint was essential to a discussion but it's hard to do when one side of the debate states his view then refuses to participate in the debate or defend what he has said! Sorry we're boring you.

You may well have had this debate before, however that has never stopped us before! Perhaps the people on this thread weren't involved in the last one!

Oh well. Sorry Vontabago. You only get one side of the argument.

Must be CX1 poisoning. Or possibly we're P****d off with the steady stream of hatchet jobs we have to fix coming from people who claim to be as well qualified as us following 2 weeks worth of practical training. Just a thought.

Respectfully

Robert

*
Or was that sarcasm

Yes I can see David promotes FHPs due the the fact he has an investment in them.

A bit like Mcdonalds promotes it's hamburgers. They might look like the proper thing but they are dangerous for your health. and Im not talking hamburgers.

Argh!!!! Time travel!

So, just to clarify, you're NOT going to REPLY to my post but you ARE Ok with going back and editing your LAST post to respond to MY post which was itself a reply to the post you edited in reply to my post.


Glad thats cleared up then! I do like a bit of special relativity theory. Time is relative to motion, gravity, and apparently also irritation. :)

Fair nuff though. The comment you quoted me on adds little to the debate i freely admit (although it IS my experiance and it DOES explain "whats with" me). Better and more relevant questions were asked but you were silent on those as well.

I appreciate why you might not want to get into this debate. It seems to be affecting your blood pressure and stress IS the disease of our time. I would hate to be responsible for a peptic ulcer. They sting. Calm down dear. Its only a forum!

I'm not sure thats fair. We neither know nor should we care whether David is "promoting" FHPs because of self interest. He has a view which differs from most. Thats GOOD. Thats what this forum is all about. Disagreeing with what he says can be GOOD. Getting cross with what one another say is HEALTHY. Impugning the poster themself, personal critisism (as opposed to critism of peoples views) and poking holes in peoples credibility is, in my opinion, out of order. But thats just my view.

It DOES slightly irritate me when people make statements then refuse to discuss or justify them.

Regards
Robert

PS David if you want to reply to this post could you tell me which post you will be editing your reply into to save me looking? Sorry sorry, could'nt resist that. Don't get cross. It's all done with love.

Vontabago,
You've gone from
Quote:
"I wanted to know because their is a lot posts ive read on this site that dont think too well of them, I know their training is not as long as a podiatrists. Ive noticed a college called the (College of Foot Health Practioners) the training is aprox ten months long and they do a few days on the job training."
So thats not knowing about FHPs, right?

To making a gross assumption about me without knowing me, the facts, or indeed anything about FHPs (according to your posts).
Quote:
"Yes I can see David promotes FHPs due the the fact he has an investment in them."
Suddenly you know about FHPs and me?. In three days

Hmmmmm

Robert - is there anything in particular you wish to discuss?
Anything I've said which you believe was erroneous, a lie, or half-truth?
PM or email me if you like.

I would refer you and other interested parties back to the 1st and 2nd post on this thread.
1st post.
Quote: "Hi all

ive just completed my access course and am looking forward to starting my pod degree. ive noticed that there are foot practioners also who do private work.

Can anybody inform me what ability they have, compaired to a podiatrist?

regards Mark."

2nd post.
"none

hope that helps."

I merely sought to redress the balance.... :)

Quote (Robert):
"Glad thats cleared up then! I do like a bit of special relativity theory. Time is relative to motion, gravity, and apparently also irritation.

Fair nuff though. The comment you quoted me on adds little to the debate i freely admit (although it IS my experiance and it DOES explain "whats with" me)."

So I assume you can see where I'm coming from in not wanting to contribute further to this thread?

Now, does everyone know what Imaging CPD is?
(Radiology, MRI, etc).

I think that's it then :p .

Cheers,
David :)

David I do know about you, and yes in three days. ( www.chilternmondial.co.uk) although I must apoligize I must have made a mistake after reading your website I thought it said you trained FHP. this is not the case.

But I only asked a question as I wanted to here both sides of the story so I could make my own mide up. I had visited the varius FHP websites and was a little confused about the fact, if pods had to be on a register, then why not FHP.

I was not totally ignorant to the fact that they exist.

This post was not suposed to start a foot war. But it apears ive stumbled in to one.

Regards Mark

Mark

>Can anybody inform me what ability they have, compaired to a podiatrist?

There are two entirely different occupations which attend to foot care. The criteria for registration with the Health Professional Council (HPC) has been set and is recognised by the UK Government. Registration is restircted to podiatrists/chiropodists who meet this criteria.

Foot health professionals of whatever denomination, who are not members of HPC, have their scope of practice constrained by legislation. To explain that further, if legislation restricts access to therapeutic substances such as local anaesthesia, then only those recognised with the resquite training can legally use the prepartion.

Both FHPs and HPC podiatrists legally offer their services in the private market place. Both occupations are legitimatley part of the foot health industry within the UK. One is no better or worse than each other, just two separate, and as yet, unconnected grpups.


Hope that helps
Cameron
Disclaimer. Cameron Kippen has no association with HPC Registered Podiatrists nor Foot Health Professionals.

Hi Mark,
No problem - thank you for taking the time to explain your position.
Cheers,
David

David

Glad to see you're posting :) instead of . Was worried you'd taken it personally there! It is, as i say, all love.

Loosely speaking i agree with this statement. I agree in the same way as i would agree that Doctors and nurses or officers and privates are all legitimate proffessions and no better or worse than each other. However they are DIFFERENT. You won't get a doctor to dress a leg ulcer in the community.

I feel that there is a problem with FHP's in that once they get out into the private arena they tend to market themselves as being the same as Podiatrists. Obviously pre closeur of title they even shared the name.

I'd rather post than PM. That way its an open discussion which everyone can enjoy. PMs will only benifit the people PM ing. Why not make it open for everyone?

Feel free to ignore me if you don't want to play.

The thing you said which was I think was a half truth, a significant ommission if you will, was what you did NOT say in your origional post where you listed the differences

You did not mention that FHPs do less than a third of the theoretical training of Pods. You did not state the amount of time they have for clinical training (compared with 1000 hours for pods)

The implication of your post was that other than those scope of practice areas you mentioned, there are no other differences. We do not spend 2 of the 3 years just learning LA and surgery. Hence my conclusion that in the shared area of practice Pods are better trained because we spend more time training for it.

Honestly no! You have a view. We have a view. THey differ significantly. Thats what makes this forum so much fun.

Regards
Robert

Im even more confused. I have podiatrists telling me there is no differance between a FHP and a podiatrist.

Like I said I have had to do a very intence access course. maths, biology, physiology, anatomy, bio chemisty, lectures, computing, lab reports ect ect. this was not an easy course and I spent a solid year and most evenings and weekends working to achive the grade I needed to get on to my podiatry degree. even with biology we went in to great depth with dna, mrna, transciption, translation, cell biology, genectics, sickle cell, even learning eukarryotic cells have ribosomes of 80S prokaryotics have 70S drugs will destoy the 70s and not effect the eu ribersomes. ect ect. This was a university run course.

im not trying to claim I have knowledge I dont, but im just trying to understand how can a fhp in one year be the same as a podiatrist in ability as some of you are claiming?

1) They dont need A levels or an access course.

2) they canot prescibe drugs. so my extra three years training has got to mean there is a big difference between the two.

Also while on the subject, is it againt the law to advertise like this

Becoming a Podiatrist? (this is the writing above the link on google)
www.collegefhp.com Have you considered an FHP Course? Send for your free prospectus today.

this is a realy misleading web link by the college of foot health practioners. they are claiming you can be a podiatrist.

just thought I would add this one to hot up the debate.

Please will this debate never end!!! FHP's are not the same as Podiatrists, they have completely different qualifications.

FHP's are trained by professional pod's, (so surely getting the best training) have insurance and practice within their boundaries. They should be regulated and be part of a professional council....(they want to be) whose fault is it that they are not!!!!!!!!

Why are there so many pod's out there that seem to have a major problem with this. I know a FHP who practises very professionally within his qualifications and if he has a patient he cannot treat will refer immediately on to a podiatrist, what is wrong with that? there is good and bad in all professions, hopefully more good than bad, and surely FHP's and Pod's can work together in harmony!

regards Bev