Talk:Foot health practitioner

Status in the United Kingdom & Training
This section appears to be advertising for several private institutions and trade groups, and provides no imformation on the subject that the intro paragraph does not not provide. Propose to remove this section, and the associated external links. The Interior (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This site is regularly defaced by persons who are almost certainly Podiatrists. The introduction of the Health Professions Council in 2005 reserved the statutory titles Chiropodist/Podiatrist for registrants. Not all chose to register and now work under the alternative title 'Foot Health Practitioner'. Others have since trained to work as Foot Health Practitioners. There are those who either do not understand, or have not yet come to terms with the split and the reasons that lay behind working practitioners making choices allowed by the legislation about registration. The HPC has said that it has no interest in regulating Foot Health Practitioners. The pursuit of practice for FHPs is known to the Dept of Health and is perfectly legal and legitimate.
 * Speaking for myself, I am not a podiatrist and my only edits were to add categories that seemed the closest to appropriate available. Please feel free to recategorize if you disagree, rather than just wholesale undoing everybody's efforts.  Katharineamy (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, removing other people's comments on the talk page, such as the one I'm reinstating now, is not on. Katharineamy (talk)
 * Sorry, who are these comments directed at? From the talk page history, it doesn't appear that any comments have been removed.  The Interior  (Talk) 08:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Podpoodle, I believe. Your own comment at the top had been overwritten by the text below it until I put it back. Katharineamy (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

By deleting other peoples edits, where you feel does not depict FHPs in a good light is not on. To protect the public, they need to know the difference between the standards of education and treatment between FHPs and Podiatrists. The public also need to know why FHPs are not regualated.

It is also very important that the public no that no education/ experience is necessary to work as a FHP.

By deleting facts, such as the Scope of Registration, whereby it clearly states only Podiatrists/ Chiropodists are allowed to undertake foot treatments on service users who use care services that are regulated by the CQC.

People who are wanting to embark on a career in foot health and treatments, should be provided with the comparisons of Pods, to assist them in making an informed choice.

To protect the public, they need to know what the risks are for using a FHP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhplaw (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Interior Talks first comment. I also suspected that whoever was deleting edits that were added were certainly associated with one of the FHP learning institutions OR with their Membership body. In my opinion this Wiki page was certainly been used to promote FHPs, without allowing anyone to add additional facts that did not portray the FHPs in a positive light.

In order to protect the public, all the facts need to be on the Wiki page to allow people to make an informed decision.

The thing is because FHPs are not regulated, they can provide a dodgy treatment and not be held accountable for it, and continue to work as a FHP. If a Podiatrist provided a dodgy treatment, they could be reported to the HPC, who would investigate, and if they felt the Podiatrist acted negligently, the Podiatrist would be removed from the HPC register, and the ex-Podiatrist would then be known as a FHP, and be able to work as a FHP, and continue to provide dodgy treatments with accountability.

Basically, the Chiropodists who did not meet the HPC qualifactions or did not want to be regulated, were subsequently known as FHPs.

Oops that was a typing error, it meant to read "....FHP...and continue to provide dodgy treatment WITHOUT accountability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.142.224 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement re Foot health Practitioners
The statement "Many privately trained chiropodists have rejected registration and the now-reserved title Chiropodist/Podiatrist in order to continue in autonomous independent private practice, and have adopted the title 'Foot Health Practitioner'."

Is not completely correct. Some previously practising Chiropodists who trained by the distance learning route did not qualify for inclusion on the Health Professions Council Register so had no choice but to change their title to continue trading legally. Some did not wish to be on the register as they did not want the burden of regulation or could not meet the stringent standards set by the HPC for inclusion. Others had not been trading for long enough or could not meet other ctiteria for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podwoman (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Foot Health Practitioners are autonomous practitioners who choose not to work in the NHS" is not completely correct.

The fact is that Foot Health practitioner cannot work in the NHS as their qualification is not recognised there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podwoman (talk • contribs) 09:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) A Foot Health Course - is available at various universitys throughout the uk. Enabling work within the uk including the NHS. I beleive it to be a level 4 qualification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.20.109 (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

misleading information
I wish to complain about the misleading information on this Wikipedia page

This page is factually untrue,  as to become a Foot Health Practitioner you do not need any qualification and therefore the public is being misled on an issue of medical ethics

This article should begin  " To become a foot health practitioner one needs no formal qualification whatsoever".

The only qualifications in Foot Health which are protected by law and need formal qualification are Podiatrist and Chiropodist (Health and Professions Act)

This is a very serious issue of misleading the public and it appears that the article cannot be edited. Why is this? Fluffpinkkitten (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading to suggest in any terms that a foot health profesional who primarily call themselves that is the equivallent to or indeed superior to a podiatrist which is by law a protected title. Additionally podiatry is a graduate course which is not the case with fhp courses which may be primarily short correspondence courses. The public need to be fully aware that such differences exist and that their health is no way compromised by ambivalent information in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.158 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)