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.

Regulation of Podiatry

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Mark Russell, Apr 19, 2012.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I've made public my letter to the HPC regarding the position I have taken in respect of podiatry regulation under the Health Professions Order 2001. It is no secret that I deregistered in 2008 and continue to use the title which is protected under the legislation - and this explains my reason and objectives in doing so. This is my decision and I don't expect you to support or agree with it before anyone starts rattling their sabres!

    Dear === ====

    Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxxx regarding misuse of title, which follows our correspondence last year culminating with my letter to you of xxxxxx which I set out my position regarding same. I would like to reiterate my stance to you once again in the hope that we might resolve the various issues that I have highlighted to you since I lapsed my registration in August 2008.

    Firstly, I would like to state that I am not opposed to regulation of my profession, nor do I suggest that the HPC is an ineffectual regulator. The primary function of regulation is to protect the public and to do so, the regulator has to act within the constraints of the legislation – the Health Professions Order (HPO) 2001. It is, however, my contention that it is the legislation which is ineffectual, at least in relation to the podiatric profession, and as such, the primary function of protecting the public is seriously impaired.

    The podiatry profession is particularly unique in the various health professions which you regulate insofar as the majority of registrants practise within the private health market as opposed to within the National Health Service. Training for podiatry is conducted through accredited and recognised Schools of Podiatry. However there has always been an unregulated sector in the private market both in practice and training and whilst one of the aims of the HPO was to bring all the various sectors under the regulatory umbrella – via the grand-parenting program – in relation to the podiatric profession, it has failed in its objective. Primarily this was due to defective legislation which has allowed private trainers and practitioners to circumvent the legislation by using alternate titles – other than chiropody or podiatry. For example – Foot Health Practitioner or Podologist – the latter being the standard European term for podiatrist.

    Protection of title within the professional landscape is meaningless unless there is clear definition and protection of function within that profession.

    For example; xxx xxxxx is a HPC registered podiatrist in private practice who is found to be grossly unsafe by a FTP panel following a complaint and is struck off the HPC register. Immediately following the hearing, xxx xxxxx changes her business stationary and advertising listings and promotes herself as a Podologist or FHP. She can still practice exactly the same as before, but now unregulated and without restriction. She may have been removed from the register, yet there is no effective protection for the public who are still at serious risk from this practitioner.

    In addition to this deficiency in the legislation, there are other aspects of the HPO that I consider detrimental to the public interest. I believe the regulator has been given insufficient powers to deal with malicious and/or vexatious complainants, who, for whatever reason, seek to use the regulatory framework to damage the reputation and livelihood of registrants. I fully accept the need to investigate any complaint made against a health professional; however, where the complaint has been found to have been vexatious, malicious or unfounded, the regulator has no powers to prosecute the complainant, other than to report the case to police. Where such complaints have led to practice suspension orders being imposed, the registrant has no legal redress when there has been no case to answer. If that registrant is self-employed, such an order may lead to considerable loss of income and closure of business which may be catastrophic for that individual’s practice. Such an outcome is not in the public interest.

    I refer to my own experience when a compliant was made against myself and where the complainant was a fellow registrant. Three separate NHS investigations undertaken prior to the complaint being made to the HPC found the allegations to be malicious, vexatious and without foundation. Whilst the FTP Panel properly carried out a twelve-month investigation and found there was no case to answer, they had insufficient powers under the HPO to take action against the complainant. Where there are no inhibitory mechanisms to deter malicious and unfounded complaints, the FTP process is open to abuse. In these cases, I would like to see additional powers to be given to the regulator to:

    (i) Table prosecution through the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and

    (ii) To award compensation to cover loss in the event of a malicious and unfounded complaint being made.

    I have been in practice as a podiatrist for almost thirty years and I would like to think I have been a good advocate for my profession both in terms of patient care and representation in the wider community – both local and national. I have been – and still am – extremely passionate about my vocation and I strive to provide the patients under my care with the very best clinical and professional attention that they deserve. I abhor poor practice and I am dismayed by the divisions within my profession that have existed throughout my professional career and very much regret the inadequacies of the HPO in addressing these deficiencies – to the detriment of the public and profession alike.

    I have lobbied Parliamentarians and Ministers but I detect no desire to amend the legislation to address these inadequacies, therefore I have come to the conclusion that the only way to achieve effective regulation is to defy the regulation by deregistering and maintaining the use of the title that I have used for the past 29 years. To that end I would welcome prosecution to clarify this argument as I feel that this is the only way left to me to achieve the principal aim – that of effective regulation to protect the public.

    I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

    Yours sincerely

    Mark Russell
    Podiatrist
     
  2. Peter

    Peter Well-Known Member

    Fully understand your course of action Mark. In cases outside of the HPC, if a complainant makes false and spurious allegations against an innocent victim, what action can be taken against the allegator?
     
  3. Peter - I would never take any action against an allegator - far too many teeth!

    Mark
     
  4. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Made me smile.

    Don`t ever change, Mark.
     
  5. Peter

    Peter Well-Known Member

    didn't know if allegator was a word, but legally, what recourse would you have for e.g. I maliciously and falsely accused you of theft, shafted your reputation and dragged you through the courts?
     
  6. Johnpod

    Johnpod Active Member

    Feed him to the Crocs?
     
  7. JRB123

    JRB123 Active Member

    Very brave of you. I hope they take notice and act upon it. I am dismayed that people who have only completed 2 weeks practical experience can be let loose on the public with a scalpel and call themselves professionals with fancy letters after their name. The general public often have no idea of the difference between a FHP, podologist or podiatrist. I think beauty therapists have much more training doing pedicures yet they are not allowed to use a scalpel. I often wonder what will happen in the future and it makes me worry about podiatrists. Will it be GPS for nail surgery, FHPs for nail cuts, physios for msk, orthopeadic surgeons for surgery and nurses for wound care and diabetes? I agree we have to fight for our profession and not let FHPs take away our work. I think it's outrageous that FHPs can do absoloutely anything to the foot and get away with it as there is no one regulating them. Let us know how you get on with your campaign. It sounds like you have been through the mill with it all and hope things improve.
     
  8. Suzannethefoot

    Suzannethefoot Active Member

    It seems that if you are prosecuted, there will be lots of other pods coming forward to support your case. It is ridiculous that after so many years coming, the regulation is totally useless, a waste of time, money and resources.

    Perhaps all the regulated pods should leave the HPC on mass and come up with a different title for what we do?

    But do we have the courage?
     
  9. Brummy Pod

    Brummy Pod Active Member

    Suzanne the foot,

    the remit of the HPC is to protect the public.

    Did you know that you can be struck off from being a chiropodist/podiatrist one day, and set up calling yourself a FHP/Foot health specialist and that is legal.

    How the f*** is that protecting the public? it isn't!

    the legislation ia nothing short of a complete shambles.
     
  10. Suzannethefoot

    Suzannethefoot Active Member

    Exactly, that's my point!:craig:

    If all the registered pods left the HPC en-masse and called themselves by another name, in protest, it would show the ridiculousness of the legislation and perhaps draw the publics attention to this very regrettable situation.
     
  11. twirly

    twirly Well-Known Member

    In short. The HPC offers no protection to the public, just a stick to beat paid members with.

    I remain with the other 'sheep' . Too afraid for my livlihood & future mortgage payments to oppose that which I find pointless. I continue to pay each year to this (HPC) & other (whose name I dare not speak) for fear of retribution & loss of all I have worked for.

    Just 6 winning numbers away from saying: Stuff this!

    Apathetic & not a little p155ed off with all the pointless posturing.

    All credit to Mark who has the courage to speak & follow his true thoughts.
     
  12. I think if a significant number deregistered - and I don't know what a significant number could be - then it would certainly force the issue - and if backed by a public campaign, then perhaps there would be a political appetite for change. After all it's a no-brainer really if the call is from the profession to tighten and close loopholes in the present Order. Personally, I cannot understand why the various representative bodies haven't lobbied their members to ask what they think should be done. And I don't see why any deregistered clinician shouldn't continue to use the title they earned quite properly through qualification. Why should their livelihood be threatened because they consider the current regulation to be detrimental to public safety because of the exploitation and circumvention of the legislative weaknesses?

    I don't consider the possibility of prosecution a threat; I welcome it if it allows the opportunity of putting the case to jury or legal panel and I would be reasonably confident of influencing the argument positively. But I don't wish to start a movement or anything like - I'm just doing what I think is right. End of.
     
  13. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Mark

    Couple of things.

    1. I understand all that has been expressed above.

    2. I certainly don't support the concept of better the devil you know than the one you don't.

    That said it may well be the case that the ideals that people would like to see in a different or altered professional organisation quickly become neutered in the scheme of things. Change has never been a thing of worry for me but as I age I am more cynical that what we may want and what we end up getting can be quite different.

    Not a reason to not act but a reason to act realistically and not ideally. Not that you are of that ilk yourself.
     
  14. Mark Dave Smith

    Mark Dave Smith Active Member

    I really enjoyed ringing the HPC back in October to dereigister before emigrating to NZ, although they still tried to convince me to stay registered - as it's all about the money and protecting their phoney baloney jobs. Good luck to you Mark, however the HPC will continue to become an all consuming corperate empire building monster. How did we cope without them?
     
  15. Just a short update on the above. I received a letter on 14 May from Bircham Dyson Bell - agents for the HPC. This and my response follows.

     
  16. Mark Dave Smith

    Mark Dave Smith Active Member

    I de-registered in November last year, a very warm feeling indeed. Alas I have left the country to practice in New Zealand, where a podiatrist is a podiatrist. On the downside though our professional fees give me sleepless nights (as well as the earthquakes).
    Best of British to you and I'll be watching with interest.
    Mark
    Christchurch
    NZ.
     
  17. Thanks Mark and good luck. I nearly bought a practice in Blenhiem about 25 years ago but unfortunately it was sold before an offer could be made - it looked a fabulous place to live and work. Hope things work out well for you and you get plenty opportunities to explore these islands intimately. Keep us posted!

    All the best
    MR
     
  18. Suzannethefoot

    Suzannethefoot Active Member

    Hi Mark,

    You are a braver person than I am.

    Good luck. We will see how they react to your enthusiasm to be prosecuted!
     
  19. Just a sort update to report, unfortunately, little progress. It's now over five months since I last had communication on this matter from the HCPC's solicitors and a phone call to them today reveals they are still awaiting their client's instructions. Been a long deliberation. I understand those in the know at the HCPC read these forums from time to time. Anyone care to offer any advice??
     
  20. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark

    The ins & outs of the efficacy of the HPC is surely irrelevant to any defence you may make in an action for an offence under the 2001 Act. A court action may well provide a stage for you to voice your opinions on the appropriatness of the Act but any half competent barrister will easily deflect your aim.

    Surely your hope lies in the fact that not only do you have a chiropodial qualification recognised by statute but had also been using that qualification for a number of years prior to the start of the Act.

    A court may well decide that a retrospective disenfranchisement breached your human rights !
     
  21. Colleagues

    I received my papers from the HCPC last week regarding my misuse of title. For legal reasons, I am unable to furnish you with the prosecution details at this stage, however, my initial hearing will be at Westminster Magistrates Court later in May for pleading and legal arguments. When I have my trial date, I will let you know the details.

    The basis of my case is fairly well known by now and will be familiar to most of you. If you have an opinion regarding regulation of podiatry with respect to protection of title -v- function and the loopholes that are currently being exploited, I would like to hear from you - and if relevant, I may lodge this as supplementary evidence during the proceedings. I remain most grateful for your kind words of encouragement and if you feel you might like to add some weight to the argument, please PM me and I shall give you my contact details.

    Many thanks
    MR
     
  22. twirly

    twirly Well-Known Member

    I too think Mark shows great courage making a stand. He has my admiration & I wish him every success both in this pending case & the future. His actions may be just what podiatry needs. Someone with the balls to put their money where their mouth is rather than anonymously whining about fhps etc.


    :drinks

    Mandy.
     
  23. blinda

    blinda MVP

    :good: Yep. What she says.
     
  24. Disgruntled pod

    Disgruntled pod Active Member

    "Firstly, I would like to state that I am not opposed to regulation of my profession, nor do I suggest that the HPC is an ineffectual regulator. The primary function of regulation is to protect the public and to do so, the regulator has to act within the constraints of the legislation – the Health Professions Order (HPO) 2001. It is, however, my contention that it is the legislation which is ineffectual, at least in relation to the podiatric profession, and as such, the primary function of protecting the public is seriously impaired."


    IMO this is the best point of Mark's letter! It hits the nail bang on the head!

    The podiatry profession is particularly unique in the various health professions which you regulate insofar as the majority of registrants practise within the private health market as opposed to within the National Health Service. Training for podiatry is conducted through accredited and recognised Schools of Podiatry. However there has always been an unregulated sector in the private market both in practice and training and whilst one of the aims of the HPO was to bring all the various sectors under the regulatory umbrella – via the grand-parenting program – in relation to the podiatric profession, it has failed in its objective. Primarily this was due to defective legislation which has allowed private trainers and practitioners to circumvent the legislation by using alternate titles – other than chiropody or podiatry. For example – Foot Health Practitioner or Podologist – the latter being the standard European term for podiatrist.

    Protection of title within the professional landscape is meaningless unless there is clear definition and protection of function within that profession.

    For example; xxx xxxxx is a HPC registered podiatrist in private practice who is found to be grossly unsafe by a FTP panel following a complaint and is struck off the HPC register. Immediately following the hearing, xxx xxxxx changes her business stationary and advertising listings and promotes herself as a Podologist or FHP. She can still practice exactly the same as before, but now unregulated and without restriction. She may have been removed from the register, yet there is no effective protection for the public who are still at serious risk from this practitioner."
     
  25. Can I first just say thank you to all those who have written in support and with kind wishes, both through Pod Arena and by email. It has been quite a humbling experience and I am most grateful for your consideration.

    With regard to the function of the regulator, an interesting snippet from the prosecution papers as it now seems the primary duty of the HCPC is not to protect the public after all but "to protect those members of the public who seek care from those we regulate." That should make for an interesting argument!

    Best wishes
     
  26. Suzannethefoot

    Suzannethefoot Active Member

    I believe that we all know that the HCPC is totally inefficient in it's role. Good luck Mark, I wish you well in your case. I only wish I had the courage and money to do the same as you.
     
  27. Just to be clear regarding the issues surrounding this case. The principal aim is to effect an amendment to the primary legislation - the HPO 2001 - and to change the procedural process in FtP hearings. Taking the last first - I am unhappy regarding the process surrounding complaints made against registrants which are found to be vexatious, malicious, fictitious and without foundation. There needs to be a clear definition to what constitutes a legitimate complaint from one that is intended to be injurious or harmful to the practice of the registrant. The HCPC is granted the powers of prosecution by statute - criminal proceedings for Protection of Title matters and civil/disciplinary proceedings for FtP cases. Malicious allegations in the former would constitute a contempt of process and as it is a criminal matter, the court - and police would have the powers to instigate proceedings against the complainant, especially if they have falsified evidence against the registrant. In civil or FtP cases, the HPC have no powers to act against a complaint when a complaint has been found to be vexatious, malicious etc.

    Given the detrimental effect such cases can have on the livelihood of a registrant - especially those in private practice (which is the majority of this profession) it is clear that the regulator needs additional powers to effect redress in such circumstances. What powers of sanction - fines etc - is a matter for government and its legislators, but I do think it would be helpful to grant these powers, if for no other reason than to inhibit or deter vindictive complaints which have no basis in fact. This will require an amendment to the primary legislation, however I would also like the HCPC to consider their process in dealing with such complaints and the practice of advertising the allegations on their website before the hearings have taken place.

    The other issue is, of course, POT and in particular the misuse of title. As Bill, John and others have alluded to, there is the Human Rights Act and the right to work. My own case is different insofar as I have voluntary given up the right to use the title HPC Registered..... but maintain the use of the title I have always used - Podiatrist. This is not the thrust of my action - I think the vast majority of you know and understand the reasons behind my position, which is the circumvention of the legislation by people who pose a real risk to the public - those who have been found to be unfit to practice by the regulator as well as those who have no formally recognised training or qualifications.

    As stated previously, I have nothing against the HCPC - I have always found them to be courteous and helpful with all my dealings with them. The problem is with the primary legislation and the overarching regulation - one size fits all approach - which has not served any of the professions, but especially our own, very well since its introduction. And it certainly doesn't protect the public - which is why it was introduced in the first place.
     
  28. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark, as I said previously; Surely your hope lies in the fact that not only do you have a chiropodial qualification recognised by statute but had also been using that qualification for a number of years prior to the start of the Act.

    A court may well decide that a retrospective disenfranchisement breached your human rights !
     
  29. Snowstorm

    Snowstorm Active Member

    I have just sited your page on Regulation of Podiatry.
    Having taken a similar stance with the HCPC and the Health Minister. I would appreciate an update on how you are progressing.
    I have acquired a very good legal team should you require further support.
    http://www.podiatry-arena.com/images/smilies/boxing.gif

    Best Wishes
    Mark
     
  30. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    A lot of posts have been removed from this thread.

    Please be careful what you accuse me of.
     
  31. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    OK Craig, I'm sure you have had a hard time from some ( not me I hasten to add) because of my retaliatory posts, made in defence of colleagues that IMHO are being insulted and defamed by Trolls which has resulted in my posts being removed on this occasion or the thread being closed on another recently.

    But

    I Think its time I packed this site in ( cheers in the background) as I find the censorship now too much.

    So thanks for the entertainment since the site started, thanks to the friends I made ( and lost) over the years.

    Can you send me a PM before I de register for Kevin Kirbys contact so I cannot let my patient down and refer her to him as I requested in my PM to you after which

    Its all history.
    Thanks again
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  32. For the avoidance of doubt, I asked Craig to remove the posts in this thread. Whilst I am normally all for free speech, you should be aware that the HCPC and their solicitors have already read these pages and other websites too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - I don't seek to inculcate or influence others to hold my view alone, that would be absurd, but I welcome the opportunity of arguing my position with anyone. In a few weeks time that will be with people of the highest calibre and I look forward to being able to present my case when the time comes. While I am always happy to answer questions or debate the finer points with anyone, it seems to me that from the submissions under Lovefeet emanate from someone with a significant personality complex. Little wonder they do not wish to reveal their identity for they would likely have the invidious experience of being brought quickly in front of the FtP panel for examination. Some of the comments in the removed posts would certainly constitute bringing the profession into dispute - and given the wider interest in this thread and the possibility they may have been regurgitated at a future venue, I asked for them to be removed.

    All the best
     
  33. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    DTT - it was nothing to do with your posts (I did not even bother reading most of the posts).
     
  34. I should add that the purpose of this thread is simply to inform colleagues who may have an interest in these matters - not to provide a debating ground for opinions as such. Apologies to those colleagues who may have been offended in the past few days.

    All the best
     
  35. DTT:

    Personally, I would stick around. My posts got deleted also but I understand why Craig has to do such things.

    Censorship is such a harsh word.....deletion sounds so much better.:rolleyes::drinks
     
  36. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    I agree Dek

    Just knock Craig off your 'buy Admin a beer' list!

    Cheers

    Bill
     
  37. I really get tired of people complaining about any censorship here on Podiatry Arena since:

    1) Censorship happens very infrequently, and,
    2) in my opinion, what censorship is done is always for very good reason.

    The bottom line is that we are all very lucky to have someone like Craig putting in hours upon hours in keeping Podiatry Arena open as a forum for communication among us all. Honestly, I don't know how he puts up with all the BS that he must endure to keep Podiatry Arena as clean as it is....as the best podiatry website in the world. Just go ahead and try to find a better podiatry website....which one is better? Answer: no other podiatry website even comes close.

    And for those of you who complain about the few times that Craig has censored (i.e. deleted) anything here on Podiatry Arena, first think about what would happen if Craig got tired of it all and pulled the plug on Podiatry Arena.

    Then you would have something really worthwhile to complain about!
     
  38. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    There is more 'censorship' on TFS than there is here at PA!
     
  39. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Bill / Kevin
    I don't have a problem with Craig and have supported him for many years now and still do.

    I DO have a problem with Trolls ( as you may have noticed):rolleyes:

    These sad individuals that have nothing better to do than to destroy other peoples enjoyment without having the courage to stand up for what they believe in and argue their point openly but remain anonymous and insult ,jibe and attempt to ridicule respected practitioners on Pod A.

    My posts are intended to insult them and show my utter contempt which may or may not irritate them ( I usually get a reaction from them but in any case it makes me feel better:D ) as I did in this case.

    I'm making my point in my way against them which it would appear is no longer acceptable so the posts get pulled. I also understand why they get pulled in certain circumstances but as I said I think its time to go now, I'll lurk occasionally but not get involved.

    Good luck

    Cheers
    D;)

    PS Craig, I'll take your word for what happens on tfs I never go there .
     
  40. Mark got nothing to do with me as I am an unregistered and even unregulated podiatrist (in Sweden if the UK authorities are concerned ) but just catching up.

    Good luck to you.
     
Loading...

Share This Page