promoting "good practice" in unregulated sector

[Admin]

Shy asked this very important and pertinant question in another thread.

is there a case for promoting 'good practice' in the unregulated sector?

I think this cuts to the heart of many an underlying issue / agenda around this forum, tfs and orthopeds. So with a slight sense of trepidation lets have it out.

What say you? Is there?

Regards
Robert

PS PLEASE lets keep this on ISSUE and not attack ANYONE individually.

[blinda]

Sorry, just realised that you had started a new thread on this. You`d think I`d have the hang of this forum by now, wouldn`t you?
Copied from the other thread;

Robert said;

Allowing that you'll never get everybody (pod or fhp) into such a scheme, does it have merit for those who WOULD use it

So I said;

Of course it would, such mentoring would benefit both receiver and provider as learning on the job and reflecting/explaining our own practice would lead to improvement of practice.

I think it is a fine idea, just not sure who would be in a position to provide this for unregulated practitioners (other than their original trainers ). I have benefited from quite a few private practitioners who have kindly `mentored` me in LA techniques, derm diagnostic tests, etc.

Cheers,
Bel

and Shy said;

Of course it would, such mentoring would benefit both receiver and provider as learning on the job and reflecting/explaining our own practice would lead to improvement of practice.

Now for once I have no argument with this statement. It's like taking your driving test all over again. But when do you trust the trainee with those 'special secrets'?

I think it is a fine idea, just not sure who would be in a position to provide this for unregulated practitioners (other than their original trainers ).
Not sure why you see a problem here, I know it's not allowed under the Society's rules but all of the other organisation are mixed communities. Both Del and David and Bill are in such a position.

If you are concerned about breaching HPC rules as long as you do not confuse the public it should be OK.

I have benefited from quite a few private practitioners who have kindly `mentored` me in LA techniques, derm diagnostic tests, etc.

And if you are not threatening the mentors income then as you say it can be of mutual benefit.

Shy.

Then I said;

Quote:Not sure why you see a problem here, I know it's not allowed under the Society's rules but all of the other organisation are mixed communities. Both Del and David and Bill are in such a position



Good point. It is only the SCP that say we shouldn`t fraternise, but in the interests of `good (improved) practice`it would be a positive step towards helping the unregulated observe, learn additional skills and encourage them to continue to learn i.e. have a stab at the degree.


Quote:And if you are not threatening the mentors income then as you say it can be of mutual benefit



Also a valid point. Whether an FHP or Pod, I would recommend finding a mentor not too close to home for this reason. It may mean travelling a fair few miles, but certainly worth giving the clear message that you will not be poaching work from the one you are hoping to mentor you!

Cheers,
Bel

[davidh]

Jul 20, 2009 8:23:42 GMT Admin said:

PS PLEASE lets keep this on ISSUE and not attack ANYONE individually.

A great idea which I fully subscribe to.

However in order to work it would need a certain amount of 2-way communication between members of the regulated and unregulated sectors.

Where this happens it benefits all (see other thread on joint-working).
Where regulated individuals are not willing to bend a little and compromise their self-imposed moral stance it can't work.

A good example of this is the "I'm properly qualified, me" brigade who expect FHPs to refer to them out of deference - that just isn't going to happen. A bit of politeness goes a long way (I've found).

[10feet]

Robert,

You need to outline what is the unregulated sector. You need to decide who belongs in this sector.

Then you need to decide what is good practice all before this topic can be successfully debated.

Pete

[davidh]

Aug 3, 2009 7:38:00 GMT 10feet said:

Robert,

You need to outline what is the unregulated sector. You need to decide who belongs in this sector.

Then you need to decide what is good practice all before this topic can be successfully debated.

Surely the regulated sector is Chiropodists and Podiatrists, whilst the unregulated sector consists of all those who are not Chiro's and Pods who are carrying out footcare for a fee.

[dewdrop]

Surely the regulated sector is Chiropodists and Podiatrists, whilst the unregulated sector consists of all those who are not Chiro's and Pods who are carrying out footcare for a fee.

I think we would all agree with that.

Now how do we define what is "good practice" for the unregulated sector?

Where this happens it benefits all (see other thread on joint-working).

That has yet to be proved. We cannot assume this as fact based on the one example.
I cannot see how an FHP giving up their clinical autonomy to work under the supervision of a pod, being very popular. The whole point of the FHP course is to train stand-alone practitioners, not assistants.

However in order to work it would need a certain amount of 2-way communication between members of the regulated and unregulated sectors.

How do you suggest that could be implemented, David?


David, as you are involved with mentoring FHPs perhaps you could tell us what it is you tell/advise them in the area of best practice?

You have also told us in the past that (some) FHPs have a Code of Practice. Where can we have sight of this? What does it say about "best practice/standards/and referring on etc?

Even assuming that we could define "best practice" there would be no method of enforcing the standards set because the "unregulated" are, after all, unregulated.

So isn't it really a bit of a academic exercise?

[davidh]

Aug 3, 2009 7:57:17 GMT dewdrop said:

I cannot see how an FHP giving up their clinical autonomy to work under the supervision of a pod, being very popular. The whole point of the FHP course is to train stand-alone practitioners, not assistants.

However in order to work it would need a certain amount of 2-way communication between members of the regulated and unregulated sectors.

How do you suggest that could be implemented, David?


David, as you are involved with mentoring FHPs perhaps you could tell us what it is you tell/advise them in the area of best practice?

You have also told us in the past that (some) FHPs have a Code of Practice. Where can we have sight of this? What does it say about "best practice/standards/and referring on etc?

Most of the FHPs I've spoken to would welcome the opportunity to work alonside Pods. Of course this will not work if all a Pod is doing is nail-cuts and simple palliative care, because that's what FHPs do.
Podiatry is about more than this (IMO).

I mentor a very few SMAE-trained FHPs in fairly mundane matters. I have in the past mentored the unregulated doing top-up degrees too, and in one case doing a full-time degree.
I have nothing to do with Codes of Ethics or Best Practice. These are the remit of whichever Professional Body the FHP belongs to.


2-way communication is actually very simple. You need two or more people speaking to each other in a civilized way. An interchange of ideas can then take place.

Really, I'm suprised you didn't know this .

[dewdrop]

Most of the FHPs I've spoken to would welcome the opportunity to work alonside Pods.

From that statement I assume you are saying that the opportunities are not there for them? So what are they doing to make this desire a reality?

I have nothing to do with Codes of Ethics or Best Practice. These are the remit of whichever Professional Body the FHP belongs to.

Ok. So we are no further on in defining what is "good practice".
So again I ask, how would you advise them in this area?

Two-way communication is actually very simple. You need two or more people speaking to each other in a civilized way. An interchange of ideas can then take place.

I would agree with that. I was wondering what definition you were using. That's why I asked the question. Sarcasm is not needed.

Really, I'm suprised you didn't know this .

I suggest you practice what you preach, David, in line with your post below, otherwise admin's edit button will become operational.

PS PLEASE lets keep this on ISSUE and not attack ANYONE individually

So back to the deabate and it would appear that we are no further on in agreeing what "good/best practice" is for the unregulated?

[davidh]

Aug 3, 2009 10:07:57 GMT dewdrop said:

Ok. So we are no further on in defining what is "good practice".
So again I ask, how would you advise them in this area?


So back to the deabate and it would appear that we are no further on in agreeing what "good/best practice" is for the unregulated?

Good/Best Practice is usually defined in Podiatry and other foot health provision by a Code of Conduct/Code of Ethics.

Each Professional Body has their own Code of Conduct/Ethics, which their members must comply with. The HPC imposes an additional Code of Conduct for it's members of course, but that does not negate each Professional Body's Codes.

I repeat - advising about good/best practice is not my remit.

Not complying with a Professional Body Code (of conduct/ethics) may put individual PI insurance at risk, and so if asked I would always suggest complying with whichever Professional Body the individual belongs to.

[dewdrop]

Each Professional Body has their own Code of Conduct/Ethics, which their members must comply with

And who enforces that and how?

The HPC imposes an additional Code of Conduct for it's members, but that does not negate each Professional Body's Codes.

Agreed but we are talking about the unregulated sector here, aren't we?

Shy, help us out here - yours was the original question !

[davidh]

Aug 3, 2009 10:46:01 GMT dewdrop said:

Each Professional Body has their own Code of Conduct/Ethics, which their members must comply with

And who enforces that and how?

The HPC imposes an additional Code of Conduct for it's members, but that does not negate each Professional Body's Codes.

Agreed but we are talking about the unregulated sector here, aren't we?

Well, yeees, but I think you'll find a bunch of hard-line Pods on another certain forum who are transgressing at least one of the rules of the HPC - and I suspect some are SCP members too .
So transgressing "best practice" codes is probably not exclusive to the unregulated.

The reality is that no-one can enforce a code of conduct/ethics.
The individual must take some responsibility for their own actions.

If an individual transgresses and is found out then some kind of action can be taken against them, but until that point they are judged innocent until proven guilty - quite right too (IMO).

The HPC works slightly differently, in that if an individual is even suspected of transgressing their Code of Conduct the charge is made public so that they (the HPC) can be seen to be "protecting the public" and doing their job effectively.

[dewdrop]

Well, yeees, but I think you'll find a bunch of hard-line Pods on another certain forum who are transgressing at least one of the rules of the HPC

You have proof do you David, that, on a site where anyone can impersonate anyone, that
1. They are actually pods? and therefore
2. They are breaking one of the rules of the HPC ?

and I suspect some are SCP members too

.

If you have no proof David, then I suggest you keep your suspicians to yourself.

So transgressing "best practice" codes is probably not exclusive to the unregulated.

I would agree, but don't think the above example is proof of this. HPC hearings on the other hand are proof. So I don't know why you needed to mention "another site" to make your point?

The reality is that no-one can enforce a code of conduct/ethics.

I would not totally agree.

While the SCP can't enforce their code of ethics, they can if they wish, expel from the membership those who breach it.

The individual must take some responsibility for their own actions.

A basic requirement for a civilised society, I would have thought?

So where does that leave the debate about "good practice" and the unregulated?

[davidh]

Dewdrop,
You asked:
"You have proof do you David, that, on a site where anyone can impersonate anyone, that
1. They are actually pods? and therefore
2. They are breaking one of the rules of the HPC ?"

Fair question.
They could all be trolls I suppose ;D.

I suspect at least one is an SCP member (from my dialogue with him in the past).

Then you said:
"I would not totally agree.

While the SCP can't enforce their code of ethics, they can if they wish, expel from the membership those who breach it."

Well so can SMAE. But what you're saying is that you don't totally agree. but then that the SCP can't enforce their code of ethics either. Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, or do you know of any professional body who can?

I've already given you reasons why a FHP will have and should adhere to a Code of Conduct. Is there anything you do not agree with, or not understand?

[dewdrop]

They could all be trolls I suppose .

Yes, they could.

I suspect at least one is an SCP member (from my dialogue with him in the past).

That is your personal opinion and that has no place in factual debate. If you know that an SCP Member has breached the Code of Ethics and you have proof of that then you should forward your information to the Conduct Commitee of the SCP, who will deal with it appropriately.

Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, or do you know of any professional body who can?

No and no.

I've already given you reasons why a FHP will have and should adhere to a Code of Conduct. Is there anything you do not agree with, or not understand?

No.

I am trying to elict information from someone who knows more about the Modus Operandi of FHPs than I do, in order to engage intelligently in a debate started by Shy.

The biggest complaint about FHPs from pods, IMO, is that they do not know who they are or what they do.

I was hoping you could give some more information but as that is not happening I will retire for a G & T on the patio.

Slangiva !!

[seekerofwisdom]

Dewdrop and David,

This has turned into another classic 'yes you do ...no you do not' argument so common in this theame.

Shy did not start this thread it was Robert who picked up on one of Shy's comments.

You DD insist on Chiropody/Podiatry being reserved for the full time trained registered practitioner, while David believes that the 'randomly trained unregulated sector now calling itself FHPs' have a legitimate role in the 'Foot treatment industry'.

Was ever so!

The only difference now is that the unregulated have a famous name as a 'champion'.

IMO this is a pointless thread as it never illicits debate.

Shy.

Fed up with the crap weather.