Dr Podiatrist?

Good post Adrian.

Just as an aside though, the vast majority of the General Medical and Dental practitioners do NOT have Masters or Doctoral level post-grad degrees. If I understood the jist of your post, you advocate significant post-grad qualifications prior to any talk of titles. I am just curious why you think we need to exceed most of them educationally (GP's, Dentists..) before taking on the same Honorary title ?

 

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, mi dispiace! You did however offer the views of Physio's who you know on this proposition though...

What is their (Your Physio mates) view on Physio's as "Doctors".....I'll take a random guess and say they are for it, but we Podiatrists would look foolish?

What I will say is that if at least 2 Universities are offering Clinical Doctorates (Bond University , 2 years full-time with a Bach of Sports/Science as a pre-req, starting in 2009) the others will no doubt follow suit...

It seems to me to be a good time to rekindle the debate for us a Podiatrists.

 

Thats different - they will be graduates of doctorate programs (either entry level or post-registration).

This whole debate reminds me of the other that used to go on about the one-upmanship of the number of sets of letters after your name!

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Are there Bachelor degrees and Bachelor degrees, or are all Bachelor degrees equal ?

MBBS ENTER at unimelb for 2008 intake was: 99.9 – 99.95
Plus UMAT entrance examination
6 years undergrad study
Plus compulsorary 1 yr internship

B.Dent.Sci ENTER at unimelb for 2008 intake was: 96.0
Plus UMAT entrance examination
5 yrs undergrad study.

B.Pod ENTER at LTU for 2008 intake was: 76.55
4 yrs undergraduate study

The ENTER Scores may represent demand for places only, however maybe there are some real differences here ?

It could be argued that it would take postgrad study to reach academic equivalence ......

 

Hi Craig,

Pod enter score is only in the 70s, which is a big difference from Medicine / dentistry. However, I feel that the enter will gradually go up due to increasing scope of practice / pod surgery interests etc.

Cheers

 

The Podiatry ENTER score continues to fall, from the mid 90's when I applied, down to the low 70's. Seems to be getting lower.. don't undertsand why?

As for doctors getting title with 'just' an undergraduate bachelor degree, one only has to look at the scope of their practice. They study for 6 years at an undergraduet level (or 4 years graduate AFTER a bachelor degree), one year internship, then at least 3 years for further study before they are out and working autonomously. I'm not saying that we have to equate our study for theirs for the title, I'm jsut saying that we as a profession need to be able to prove that we are the specailits we say we are, and in academic and professonal fields, we need to demonstrate that our level of education is unparralled in our field.

Title or not, we need to, as a profession, demonstrate a professionalism, a level of clinical skills, and a level of education which makes us podiatrists THE specalists in feet, foot care and lower limb biomechanics. The word 'Podiatrist' should be as valuable as the title 'Dr.' and it is only ourselves through our practice, education, research, professionalism and promation who can make it so.

:drinks

 

The scope of practice has been increased for the last 20 yrs, but the "ENTER" score has been going down

Has everything to do with the numbers that the Universities are now required to admit to the program (and that number is still not meeting the need within the profession). If we only took 20-30 students a year, the score will be in the 90's.

 

Hmmm, I know what you are saying, and agree that entrance scores reflect demand or popularity, I recall there was a big entrance score required for Social Work when I was an Undergrad, again driven by demand for places. As to the issue of Academic excellence, well, by that same logic those studying Law, Architecture or say a Double Engineering Degree have an equally demanding academic undertaking as the med/dental students.

If I recall correctly, my undergrad degree BSc(Pod), (Curtin University, Perth) we had almost 30 hours of contact per week, completed around 5 or 6 units per semester, and those units were almost all sub-divided into different parts (i.e Podiatric Medicine = podiatric surgical theory / dermatology / neurology) , whereby each part had its own Assignments, Labs and Exams. It was common place at Curtin to have end of semester exams numbering in the high teens (16 or more). We spent an entire semester with the Physio's studying upper body anatomy, musculature, nervous innervation etc of the head/neck/arms/hands, which was on a par with Med students. This compares with say a Business degree that had around 11 hours of contact per week (around a third of us Pod students). I haven't studied Dentistry or Medicine but have several pals who have, and anecdotally, our degree programs have rough equivalence in terms of rigour, if not length. As to the length question, currently, we Podiatrists all study 4 years for a Bachelors degree (ultimately focussing on the lower limb). Med students spend 6 years or 4 years as a Post-Grad as we all know, and Dentists 5 years or 4 years as a Post-Grad. Both have full or limited S4 privileges.

So, hypothetically, one could have a BSc in say Chemistry or Maths, then successfully apply to Med school for a 4 year MBBS degree at any number of Institutions. So, lets compare them to a graduating Pod.

Medical Graduate Jim has an MBBS after 4 years of study as an Allopathic Physician / Practitioner, whereas, Podiatric Graduate Sally has a BSc (Pod) /BPod... after 4 years of study as a Foot Health Physician / Practitioner. NOT vastly different IMHO.

Likewise, one could have a BSc in say Maths or Chemistry and study at the University of Sydney a 4 year post-grad Dental degree and graduate as a dentist, but they as Grads are expected to Prescribe S4's and perform Osseous surgical procedures. In both of these examples, the graduates first degrees were not in a Clinical discipline.

Maybe its just me, but I don't believe in the present climate of 4 year Bachelor degrees, our Pod Grads must hold their heads in shame versus a 4 year Medical Bachelors degree, or 4 year dental degree.

It may be an oversimplification, but,

4 or 6 years Medical Bachelors degree = Whole body + S4 prescription

4 or 5 years Dental Bachelors degree = Teeth/Gums/Jaw + limited S4's (mostly Lignocaine though)

4 year Podiatric Bachelors degree = Feet/lower limb + Only Lignocaine as an injectable.

In this Country only 3 professions are legally permitted as Health Practitioners to perform Surgical procedures as Grads...Medical Practitioners, Dentists and Podiatrists. We can all use S4's (ok just Lignocaine presently for us but apart from Lignocaine my Dentist has never prescribed or administered anything else to me ! ), all perform varying Surgical procedures, all independently diagnose disease, all refer for Radiographic analysis, all work in Public Teaching Hospitals etc etc etc.....

We have much, much more in common with Med/Dental practitioners than Speech pathologists, Social workers, Psychologists, Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Chiropractors....

 

A 4 year grad entry medical degree may be more accurately compared with a 2 year grad entry podiatry degree.

(acceptance to grad entry medicine and dentistry also requires successful negotiation of the notorious GAMSAT examination):

An excerpt from the following address:

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/health/courses/undergrad/newprograms2009.html

Is it possible that acknowledgement of a difference in minimum education requirements (CPD is another example), and responding with promotion of post-graduate opportunities could do more to increase our public 'profile' and 'intraprofessional respect' than adopting a title ?

 

You are not comparing apples with apples.

The current educational situation (not a hypothetical 2011 situation at La Trobe only), is comparing Bachelors degrees with Bachelors degrees...

Taking the Dental example....

BDent (4yrs as Post-Grad) BDSc (5 years as Under grad) versus BSc(Pod)/BPod/ BSc(Pod)(Hons) 4 years as Undergrad..... Dentists do one more year than Pods as Under grads but the same as Post Grads.NOT so vastly different. In my under grad class, I had a PhD, a Nurse and several BSc qualified students studying Podiatry as undergraduate BSc students.

The Post Grad Dental and Medical Degrees are still Bachelors degrees not Masters or Doctoral degrees. Yet no one debates their entitlement to use the Honorary "Doctor".

We Podiatrists, collectively, are our own worst enemies, we seem to be saying amongst ourselves....."Their Bachelors degrees are light years ahead of ours" when in reality they are not so very far apart. :bang:

Why do we as a Profession believe we have to have PhD's to use the Honorary "Doctor"compared to say Dentists with 4 or 5 year Bachelors degrees ?

Take the average recently graduated Podiatrist, with a 4 year Bachelors degree, who on a day to day basis sees multiple general cases, several Paediatric cases, couple of Biomechanical cases, a sports injury or two, one or two Nail Surgeries, a cryotherapy case for a verrucae etc etc.....their Bachelors degree has equipped them to consult on these cases and the public love them. This Pod studies for a Masters or PhD, gets it, and what has changed ? Sure, they have a sharper academic mind, but, they still ostensibly practice in the same manner, still have the same great respect from his/her patients and the respect from his/her inter-professional colleagues may or may not change......

On the other hand, a dentist or medico gets their Bachelors/double bachelors degree, calls themselves "doctor", which in the majority of the public's view is a superior class of health professional, and even us Podiatrists (not me, not Sal or LL etc) will go to great lengths to defend their superiority....why?


Just my views....
:drinks

 

In my opinion the ENTER has very little value and is a poor indicator to the clinical professionalism of the practitioner.

I found that those in my year level with very high ENTER scores were not the ones at the top end of the course in terms of clinical ability.
It seems some posters are just trying to belittle podiatry all together? however, I could be wrong??

 

Hi All,

Thank you for some interesting and insightful posts. I'm mystefied why some podiatrists are so fiercely determined to belittle their own profession, because there really is no logical reason for holding back your own advancement. If you feel that you are less qualified that perhaps you need to be to practise, society demands two possible courses of action for you..
1. Take the necessary steps to get up to speed.
2.stop practising.

Since I assume the majority of posters here will still be drawing up the lignocaine tomorrow, allow me to put forward a summary fo the salient points for why those of you in Victoria should already be opting to use the term "Dr" before your names. The choice is yours, but bear in mind that this will only become the norm if we dabate less and do more, I personally know of an increasing number of pods in this state who already are and I can't understand why many of the posters here aren't doing the same, particularly in light of the registration board's recent re-wording of their policy.

To paraphrase, specifically for Victoria:

1. There is no legal barrier to the use of the honorific term in Victoria. if you're in a state like Queensland, obviously the exact opposite applies. Thank you for reading anyway.

2. Public perception is usdually based on just that.. perception. The fact that La trobe students encounter community health service patients who don't realise there is a degree course in podiatry is not a reflection of the podiatry profession and if it has a negative effect on anyone's own professional self esteem, then so be it, but it's still not a reason to denigrate others who are set on advancement. the cost of lobbying Canberra as was mentioned earlier for increased scope of practice is indeed significant. the cost of changing your title is effectively whatever it costs you to alter your next batch of business cards.

3. Podiatrists DO currently perform surgery, diagnose pathology, administer parenteral medications, order and read diagnostic radiological imagery, immobilise injured limbs and many, many other areas of advanced practice. If you don't specifically, then the chances of you reading this post are already less likely, since the people who are are probably just as frustrated as I am by some of the arguments put forward on here. (Adrian, this doesn't mean you. I'm in the unusual position of appreciating each of your arguments as usual and yet still finding myslef on the opposing side for once).

4. There are seven primary contact practitioner types at present. that means those who can diagnose and treat without the need for a referral and still receive, for instance, private health rebates. They are medical practitioners, dentists, osteopaths, chiropractors, optometrists, physios and podiatrists. You will notice that more than half of those listed call themselves Doctor. Interestingly, acupuncturists and lately naturopaths, who do not number among them, do as well.

5. only medical practitioners, dentists and podiatrists perform surgery of any sort. On humans, at least....

6. the vast majority of medical degrees in Australia are heading towards shorter models. not one of the numerous 4 year medical degrees, namely Sydney, Bond, Flinders, Queensland (there is even a Melbourne 4 1/2 one) require any sort of scientific or medical education prior to entry. In fact Bond takes school leavers, so you can graduate with a medical degree at the age of 21. The university of Sydney's dental degree is similar. Clearly length of study is not an indicator. Nor is tertiary entrance score, which has a direct bearing on the number of places. If teh University of Melbourne had also doubled its places since the 90s the way La Trobe has, the entrance score would also have fallen.

I could go on, but here's the thing. A great many people on here have expressed a desire for things to change. The registration board, whilst not directly recommending it (which will only happen with a ground swell of podiatrists requesting change through the association), has removed any hint of impediment and many individual podiatrists have decided, upon discovering this, to adopt the title. The public is rarely confused by a chiropractor who calls themselves "Dr" but they are frequently ignorant of the tiers of training required to practise as a clinician. By not adopting the title, you risk being perceived as a lesser level or practitioner than the multitudes of others who dabble or practise quite proficiently in orthotics, nail surgery, curettage, dermatology, diabetes education or a plethora of other areas of overlap..

So do us all a favour. If you're in Victoria and you're reading this and in the last week you either performed a procedure under LA, put a cast or a camwalker on someone, read an x-ray or even did a biomech assessment, quietly change over your business cards to Dr So & So, Podiatrist. All those who have so far have received no resistance from any areas except other pods, and even those are few and far between. We have historically been our own worst enemies and what other people think has never been the deciding factor in advancement in any field of endeavour. So please, go out there and call yourselves Doctor. You'll still introduce yourselves to your patients as Sally or Andrew or whatever, but if you don't do it now, who will make change for you? When I finished high school in the early 90s, osteopaths were actually not allowed to use the title. Chiros had only recently been able to as well and acupuncturists weren't even thought of in this regard unless they'd trained in China. This revered professional history that's been alluded to is much, much younger than people think.

So please, as I thank you for some excellent posts, do something tangible. The idea is to go forwards..

Hope I haven't offended too many, but if I've convinced one or two of you to do what I suggest, why would I care about what a bunch of physios think of what I call myself.

interested to hear if any of you will change things too

have a good night

Richard

 

:good:

Fully agree
:drinks

 

Hi Julian and Richard,

I agree with much of your perspectives, but am still a bit concerned that without proper scrutiny, the adoption of a title may appear to be ‘blowing our own trumpet’ a little too obviously……..I’d like to respond without appearing critical (I would prefer not to be eaten alive as Julian’s photograph suggests !! ).

The comparison of podiatry, medicine and dentistry has been a consistent theme on this thread. However, comparisons that demonstrate our similarities seem to be encouraged and welcome, while comparisons that demonstrate our dissimilarities are considered degrading to our profession. Differences in the minimum educational requirements (including CPD) between these professions seem to be real and significant. In my view, acknowledgement of these differences demonstrates a sense of confidence in our profession (as opposed to inferiority), and the willingness to pursue advancements based on successful models.

On a political forum, exposure of these differences followed by advancements in our minimum requirements to make amends, may result in less ammunition for lobby groups such as the AMA. Ultimately, searching for these differences could result in changes that deliver professional advancements with far greater implications than focussing on similarities and adopting a title……

More than enough from me ……. these are just my ideas and I am open to persuasion as always !

 

Hey Julian,
How right you are!!!!! Great post.
That’s precisely what this is about!!!!!!!!! "IT IS SIMPLY ANOTHER TOOL IN THE ARSENAL TO CEMENT OUR EXISTING TERRITORY AND MAKES CKLEAR TO ALL AND SUNDRY WE VEIW OURSELVES AS THE TOPDOG WHEN IT COMES TO FOOT HEALTH"

And to be honest, who cares what anyone else thinks!!! We are a profession grounded in hard science and medicine and we should be proud of that. If we let things like "the opinion of others" hold us back than we'll forever remain the way we are.

THANK YOU, JULIAN, FOR THE POST!!! :good:
Cheers,
Sal

 

G'day, A. Mcmillan,

Thanks for the post. But i don't think ENTER Scores etc are a good yard stick measure.

Uni Sa: Bachelor of Podiatry (4 years) ENTER score 95.4-96
University of Western Aust: Bachelor of Podiatric Medicine ENTER score 90+

And to get in to Medicine you need and ENTER between 90 AND 99.95 (Across Australia) I had a mate get in to Medicine with an ENTER of 90.

I graduated from Uni Sa and i can tell you, getting in was no easy feat!!!

Cheers,
KEEP POSTING! THEY'RE ALL GREAT!!
Saleh

 

:good:
SPOT ON!!!!
You have hit the nail on the head. There is no reason why we shouldn't be in the same class as these other professions.
If ytou look at the facts (as you have above) its almost worrying why we, as Podiatrists, haven't moved forward with regard to Title and S4 prescribing rights!!!!

Cheers,
Sal

 

Sal I agree with you. Quite simply, with respect to S4 rights, we are moving ahead. The legislation passed in Victoria in 2006. What we appear to be waiting for is the implementation. As to why we haven't advanced with the title, it's quite simple. We haven't asked to. Anecdotal evidence has it that at the times when boards and associations have mooted the idea, it's been taken down from within, not from without. The APodC, The APodA and especially the registration boards are busy enough without introducing issues at a state level that have not been requested by the bulk of practising podiatrists. we've already established that the title is protected in some states but not others. The crucial issue is that if a referendum were held on it tomorrow in your state, there are still not enough people vocally in favour of change to convince me that it would pass of its own accord. The reason the members of the ACPS have effected the changes that they have managed to is simply because they put themselves on the line and fought for what they believed was needed to practice as a surgeon.
If, as some people suggest, individuals here are not comfortable with using the title themselves then by all means don't. But to those of you who are in this boat, please do us the courtesy of not harping on about doctors and dentists and ignoring the fact that chiros, osteos, acupuncturists and a good few others have made the choice as a profession, because I can assure you that we know as much about what we do as they do about their fields.
What we need to address here is public perception. Believe me, if they call you doctor, they probably won't make you call into question the need for your valuable and comprehensive skills. If you don't believe hat you possess the latter, then perhaps the blame does not rest with your university.
As I said last night, if you're in Victoria, check the registration board website, talk to others and then for goodness sake, seriously consider adding to the weight of numbers and 15 years from now, this will be an academic memory.

 

Richard, though the arguments for have been well written, by all, they fail to justify the claim that using the term "Dr" in front of one's name is belittleling? the profession, and that this 'failure' is holding back its advancement?
mark c (Podiatrist)

 

I think you've misunderstood my statement Marc (it may not have been expressed as eloquently, as it was written quite late at night). I am not referring to those who seek to use the term as belittling the profession. Quite the opposite. I believe that podiatrists should use the title. If you read some of the earlier posts, you will notice that there are those who advance the argument along the lines of "we're not as good as others, therefore who do we think we are?" I find this sort of argument to be professionally insecure. The model of healthcare as consisting of medical practitioners being complete and everyone else being a slightly lesser version is, to say the least, naive and outmoded. Also, anyone who is concerned that we will somehow become a target isn't aware of the general workings within the medical fraternity.. there is just as likely to be slanging between orthopaedic and plastic surgeons as there is between doctors and podiatrists, nurse practitioners or whoever. It's the nature of our own particular beast. I'd rather work with people than against them, but after 10 years of tertiary education so far, I find it hard to consider myself subeservient to an unrelated professional body. Personally, when somebody tells me that their patients are surprised that there's even a degree course for podiatry, I find that person's adoption of the experience as the basis for where they see their own profession to be misguided and, yes, belittling to those of us who try and do more advanced practice than simply general care. I apologise if this offends anyone, but i think you missed my point.

 

I do apologise for mis-spelling your name though Mark

 

I apologise you're certainly correct
This

should have been, 'that NOT using the term "Dr" in front of one's name"
My only excuse is that this current episode of gout, and possible re-rupturing my ACL, has me on a laptop balancing on my good knee (this week's good knee anyway), all the best, mark c
mark, marc, stud or 'hey you' ....... i've answered to them all

 

Hi Richard,
Thanks for the post!! I totally agree with what you're saying. I think that if enough Pod's adopt the title then the change will come naturally. Until the law changes, there is no reason why we can't use it. The use of the title will change the perception of many within the profession and when the benifits are seen, i think, the change will come naturally.
Cheers,
Sal

 

Ciao "A",

My bark is worse than my bite !

I do take your points about proper scrutiny. I too do worry about the AMA splashing on the Newspapers a photo of one Pod's dank little clinic and shingle which reads Dr. Plod, Podiatrist (Associate Diploma of Chiropody 1975) ! Certainly, they would love to as the Yanks say, "Take a shot" at us, and I'm sure they could find a few examples of Pods who may not be shining examples of continuing Professional development.

The choice we face does have this possible element, and I acknowledge it could paint us in a poor light.

But here is the other side of the issue. Because we have as a Profession seen so many different qualifications and titles (Chiropodists/ Chiropody / Podiatry / Podiatric Medicine...) over the last 20-30 years plus . We have Assoc. Diploma's, Diploma's, 3 year Bachelors of Applied Science/BSc and now 4 year Bachelors plus or minus embedded Honours years at Technical Colleges, TAFE's and Universities (!)...whew ! (at least they can't say we have stagnated educationally!) Certainly, in this respect, we are open to criticism. Furthermore consider this:

1. We are educationally as closer now than we've ever been to the Med / Dental grads in terms of 4 year Bachelors degrees at respected Universities (esp UWA where they study 2 years alongside Med/ Dental students). Pods degrees have lengthened in time (and broadened in scope) whereas Med/Dental degrees if anything have been shortened (to accommodate postgrads). Sure the ENTER scores are higher for them, but adding a carrot of "Doctor of Podiatry" would instantly improve demand for our Degree and drive up the ENTER score.

2. Using the UWA degree, I have no way to prove or disprove, but I'd wager a Seafood Dinner, that our Pod students where they share Med/Dental units, are not the bottom scoring students in their shared classes, I'd argue the average Pod would score similarly to the average Med/Dent student ?

3. If not now, then when? Meaning that some in our profession will either set the bar so high (Ph.D's, Doctor of Pod. Medicine etc) or move the bar constantly (the timing isn't right, not a good idea now, should be done but not until the future etc etc...just think of Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister !). We likely will have members of our profession with Diplomas or 3 year Bachelors degrees for the next 10-20 years plus, and in that time who knows, maybe the minimum qualification will be Masters (ala La Trobe, Masters of Pod. Practice in 2011) or Doctorate, but we still won't adopt "Doctor" because we'll always have a disparity of minimum qualifications !?!?
So with the constant change of minimum qualifications anticipated, when?

Phew...rant over, I need a glass of wine !

:drinks

 

G'day all,

Richard, great to hear from you and you're right, not often we are on the opposite sides of an opinion!

I do see the merits in what everyone is saying, and I think that on the whole we all agree on how great we all are drinks). Yes we are the foremost in foot care, yes we can implement specialised management techniques i.e. minor surgery, use of anastetics etc, yes we can diagnose and yes our training has components of a full medical degree in it (and in some areas moreso). To that I agree entirely. I am just failing to see how calling ourselves Dr. changes our practice. Yes it may change some perspectives, but it certainly wont change who we are or what we do. The little old ladies who come in for their nail cut (and lets face it, nailc, corns and callouses are our bread and butter) are still going to put us up there with their hairdressers and call us manacurists (cringe :bang, and people are still going to be shocked that we do a university degree ('Oh you have to goto university to do this, AND you call yourself a doctor? I didn't know that!'). We should be promoting ourselves as specalists, and our health promotion should focus on us as specalists. I really don't think that the title will make a difference one way or another, except maybe make us feel a bit better? But if we decide to do it, lets do it as a whole body... maybe when we (if we) get these S4 rights we've been plugging on about? :hammer:

Cheers all!!

 

Hi Adrian,

Agree totally with the statement 'if we decide to do it, lets do it as a whole body'. This is the best way, as it will lead to a large number of pods using the title, thus reducing confusion:wacko: of having some pods titled Dr and some not.

 

Hi Adrian,

Good post, and I think most of us are on the "same page" just a few minor differences....no big deal.

I totally agree that for the average Pod, doing bread and butter work, a change in title does not fundamentally change How we do what we do. But then again, having a minimum Qualification of say Masters won't either, at least as it refers to practising Primary Care Podiatry as we all do on a daily basis.

Next, the little old ladies and other members of the public who put us up with Manicurists or are surprised we even do a degree, they should be cringing by showing their ignorance....not you! Many of the little old ladies who, over the years have demonstrated their ignorance to me, left school at 15, worked for a few years, married and made babies...that's it ! Let's have the right amount of perspective, the average member of the public who makes such remarks doesn't know what a Masters degree is, or how you get one. There are plenty of others who assume we are Medical Practitioners already, then became Podiatrists....both are wrong, but both illustrate how important it is to us, and the public how we are perceived.

This identifies at least one of the best reasons to change titles, so that you as a practitioner, and, the public view Podiatrists as specialists. If , for arguments sake, we are sensitive to how we're perceived, then why not change that perception by "hooking" into the public's perception of Doctors as a superior class of Health professional.

I put it to you, that the public are much, much more likely to consult Dr. Adrian Misseri about surgical problems, sports problems, paediatric problems, exploiting your whole range of professional skills.......rather, than dear old Adrian (or Julian) the guy who "does"my feet ?

Sure, you'll get a few raised eyebrows initially, maybe even a snide remark from time to time, but your getting them anyway! You'll still have the love of your existing 'nip & chip" clients and the public will perceive that you have so much more to offer them.

A change in title is not a panacea, but just one of the external changes we can make to let us and the world know, we have so much more to offer. The public would accept you as a Doctor of Podiatry when they have a bigger uptake of your Higher skill set.

Near to where I live, Phil Perlman (DPM) ,RIP, used to practice, and the public who knew him, called him a Foot Doctor, equating a Foot Doctor as being superior to a Podiatrist when it comes to more complex problems. Herein lies the problem, we Podiatrists are great, and loved for Primary Care, but so much of our other skills are going to waste (or at a minimum under-utilised). The public didn't know nor care, about Phil's qualifications, or the fact that He and I share the same scope of practice under legislation.

Here's what one said to me:
"...Hi Julian, thanks for fixing my ingrown nail, but, Phil's a Foot Doctor, I'll go see him about my nerve pain (digital deformity, kids adducted gait... etc etc )

All Podiatrists as Foot Doctors...its win - win in my view.
:drinks

 

Hi Adrian and Julian,

both great posts. I think by and large the majority of us are on the same page here but Adrian, I do agree with Julian in that what we're discussing is about public perception of our abilities. We know the quality of them and yes, it does need to happen as a whole body, hence my suggestion two days ago that Victorian podiatrists commence doing so.
I do find myself wondering why nobody asks this of dentists when they give a cleaning? I'm sure most of them never thought about the fact that they'd be driving a motorised tooth buffer, but it certainly hasn't effected the self esteem of any I know and I don't eschew general care.. it just isn't my primary focus. What worries me is that we're getting left behind at a time when it's becoming increasingly the norm for the upper tier health professionals, i.e. primary contact practitioners amongst whom we number, to refer to themselves by the title "doctor". I have no issues of how I'm perceived by people in the know, but we can't expect that just because we understand the scope of practice or depth of training that goes into growing baby podiatrists these days, that the general public will as well. If we weren't concerned with professional image, identity and standing, the truth is that we wouldn't be doing foot health weeks and we might feel easier about letting the GP send for ultrasounds etc (incidentally, the references made earlier about people still going through their doctors because they'd get bulk billed... not in my suburb in 2008...).
If anyone has missed my viewpoint thus far because they decided to randomly start reading at post no 100, I think we should commence using it and I know of at least 25 individuals who already have in Victoria where there is no impediment. Adrian, your viewpoint will be respected whatever you call yourself, because you're one of the best pods I know.

have good weekends.

Richard

 

Hi Richard, Adrian and all...,

Thanks for your post. At the outset, let me personally apologise If I have offended, or sounded opinionated ! (Of course I am opinionated but don't want to be perceived as such!!)

Its so easy to get quite emotive on this issue and I can't speak for others, but personally, I see the Generalists of our Profession as an under-used resource. We all have skills and education to be of so much more community benefit, and, would ourselves have a higher degree of self-esteem.

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I am in Queensland! Hypothetically, though, I'd love a patient to say to me...."Why do you call yourself Doctor, when your only cutting my toenails ?". I'd reply that I may be cutting your toenails now, but later I'll be surgically correcting an ingrown toenail under local anaesthesia, reviewing the X-rays of an elite athlete, applying a cast for an injured ankle etc etc....In a way,defending to a patient or colleague, why we are called "Doctor" it leads into the best kind of public promotion of our skills.

We don't have to worry about that small section who are surprised we have to have a degree to cut a nail, or think we're Doctors already, they have preconceived notions anyway....its the rest who we must be concentrating on.

We already have established ourselves over 50 plus years as experts on General care, no one debates this, now is the time to focus the public's perception on the complex foot problems that the public don't think of us for.....yet we're educated / trained to address....

I may be wrong, but my 2 cents anyway.....

 

I can not agree with the adoption of the "Dr" term. Yes I think that only Ph.D holders, the 'true' doctors, and medical practitioners, who have been known as 'doctor' for what must be a considerable time now, should be referred to as 'Dr', in correspondence and, for medical practitioners in clinical settings, conversation.
I have never called and do not consider a osteopath, chiropractor, dentist or any other profession a "Dr".
I am not belittleling? the podiatry profession. There are many podiatrists who could and obviously do have greater knowledge / ability than the majority of the other medical/allied health/nursing population. Look no further than this forum; there are some "exceptional" contributors and some interesting young "thinkers" who contribute, for which I give many thanks.
Now as for the use of a descriptive term to recognise advanced standing within the profession, I'm certainly not against it, eg podiatric physician!, mark c

 

Hi Mark,

I respect your opinion, but would you care to offer some support for your view ?

How did you form this view?

Why do you not view others (Including us) as "True Doctors"...yet happily want to adopt the "Physician" title, surely by your stated logic, only Medical Practitioners are the true physicians ?

So far your post matches your avatar....yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.......

Cheers
Julian :drinks

 

Good evening Julian,
Historically a "doctor" is one who is a medical practitioner. No confusion. I don't consider it a slight on the other professions.
As for equivalence? between medical and podiatry courses, I would be extremely surprised, and concerned, if they were. Though my knowledge of the current pod. courses is limited to what I have read in this forum and discovered from contact with students (eastern state courses), I certainly can not agree with this claim. Unless the UG medical courses have deteriorated recently. Anyone with 'facts' to the contrary, please correct me.
The choice of "physician" seems a poor example, but I was thinking along the lines of a physician being a specialist, "one who is devoted to a particular occupation or branch of study or research".
Though you and others of your opinion express yourselves admirably, and do the profession proud, it is just that, like mine an opinion. Neither of us are wrong.
It's just I think, to quote from one of my favourite movies, "Ya dreamin", all the best, mark c

 

I think you mean "Tell him he's dreamin'" !! Also a favourite movie of mine.

You are spot on to the extent that there is no right or wrong here, just opinions and propositions.

Speaking personally, I just worry that the Generalist Podiatrist (as a rule) is for want of a better word "stuck" in a numbing routine of spending around 50- 75% of their time treating bread and butter routine care. Nobody needs to spend 4 years full-time at University to do this. I am fortunate in that I have a wonderful mixed caseload, but have worked in situations where most consulting is simple General care, sure it pays the bills, but we have so much more to offer. But the public will never know . if we continue to "hide it under a bushel" so to speak.

As to Medical vs Podiatric equivalence of qualification...that's a no brainer...it, as far as I am aware, not equivalent nor seeks to be. We are not Allopathic practitioners.

What we do we do exceedingly well (low rates of complaints/insurance premiums etc), but we are closer now than ever before to the Medical / Dental model.

Public perception of our skills IS important and maybe we should consider our Nomenclature now...

The world will not end, if we don't adopt "Dr", but are we happy for things just to tick along as they are?

Cheers Mate, off to enjoy a Mad Fish Red now....
:drinks

 

WIll just changing our title to Dr. really change that perception and make that much of a difference? I think more promotion about ourselves and what we do is more important in elevating our perception in the general public. Yes I'll agree that using the Dr. title may help a little, but what we really need is a whole lot of 'advertising' of ourselves as a profession, demonstrating the larger scope of what we of to a larger patient base.

 

Where does this end?

What about a masseur adopting the title?

 

If podiatrists adopt the title Dr, then the physios do, then the nurses do, then the psychologists, then the.....eventually everybody working in healthcare will be titled Dr so how does that then make podiatrists stand out in the crowd of health care workers all desperately looking for a title to enhance their public image?

As a student podiatrist I am excited about the prospect of finishing my course and practicing as a podiatrist. However as a student of podiatry and knowing numerous work colleagues and friends who are currently / or have studied medicine I consider that the rigours of a four year podiary degree don't come close to the rigours of completing either a 6, 4, or 4.5 year medicine course. Intuitively this makes sense. Studying the lower limb for four years (yes with a bit of whole body anatomy & physiology thrown in) compared to four years learning about the entire body. Some have posted on here that the four year podiatry degree has more anatomy & pharmacology than a medical degree. This may be true in some cases, but really is only comparing dedicated subjects. In medical courses students may only do a couple of general pharmacology subjects, however when they are studying specific subjects such as neurology they will do extensive study into drugs used to treat neurological condiions during that component of the course, same for respiratory etc etc.

I noticed somebody put up a video clip about a Seinfeld episode where podiatrists were referred to as 'not a real doctor'. Over the years I have heard this same comment (or very similar) in a few sitcoms and movies when referring to Dr Podiatrists. So is this what the public opinion of Dr Podiatrists is, maybe not, but if it is then adopting the title of Dr could be detrimental to the podiatry profession where we may be seen as 'pretend' Dr's.

As much as podiatrists can do there is still a great deal podiatrists can't do that I believe the public would expect them to be able to do if they adopted the Dr title. For example if I had onchomycosis for which I had tried topical antifungals but been unsuccessful and I went to a Dr podiatrist to get oral antifungals and the Dr podiatrist told me I had to go to my GP because he/she couldn't prescribe oral antifungals then I would feel a little bit decieved by the use of the title Dr. I would also expect that a Dr could suture my lacerated foot and give me a tetanus booster. If I had.........etc etc. Hopefully in the (near) future podiatrists will be able to do all these things and once graduated I will certainly be doing my part to expand the scope of podiatric practice.

But even if podiatrists significantly expand their scope of practice does having the title Dr really benefit them professionally? I really think that expanding the number of health practitioners who call themselves Dr's will only serve to confuse the public about who can do what and if their expectations of what they think a Dr should be able to do aren't met then podiatrists (and any otehr health professional who adopts the Dr title) run the risk of losing professional credibility, not improving it. I think that there are far better ways to improve podiatry's professional profile than having to steal somebody else's job title.

When I decided to go back to uni nearly four years ago now I looked at the whole gamut of health professions but decided on podiatry partly because I thought it would be interesting, partly because I thought it would be a secure occupation into the future, but mostly because I believe that providing expert foot care could make a huge difference to a persons independence and health. I think it is a profession that has much to offer and I see that it is a profession that over the next decade and beyond will see significant advances in its scope of practice. But I think podiatry should leave the title Dr to doctors and rather than confusing the public and spending time educating the public about podiatrists being 'foot doctors' the time and energy would be better spent just promoting the profession as PODIATRISTS - SPECIALISTS IN ASSESSMENT, DIAGNOSIS & TREATMENT OF THE LOWER LIMB AND FOOT.

Just a few thoughts from a yet to be, but hopefully soon to be podiatrist.

David Kelly

 

:good:

Welcome David, good to hear a bit of really well thought out input form a student. I agree whole heartedly with your ideas!

Cheers!

 

Taken from this thread:http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=16693

Its become a circular argument hasn't it.

LL

 

Dear Posalafin,

A thoughtful post of yours that I read and digested.

Couple of points:

Firstly, we should and must be concerned first and foremost with our own professions standing. Worrying about the hypothetical Nurses, OT's (Some new Physio's ALREADY are) etc adopting the title is not our profession's concern. It is very altruistic, but IMHO naive. We are in business, we are competing with GP's, Osteopaths, Physio's (already doing Doctor of Physio degrees) et al.

This again is a worrying concern of mine about our great profession.....we seem overly worried about what others (professions principally) may do, or say about us.....and even you as a pod student seem to have adopted this characteristic.

Secondly, the public know exceedingly well that when it comes to General Foot care, Podiatrists are the ones to see. As I posted earlier, where I practice, Dr. Phil Perlman also practiced. No amount of me educating (some) of my patients would convince them that Phil and I shared the same scope of practice, just different degrees. In the view of may of the public (ask any Gold Coast practitioner), Phil was a "Foot Doctor" and was a cut above the average Julian or Joe or Sally.

The public will always go to us for General Care, but given the choice for more complex care , they'll choose someone with the title Doctor.

I have more to say, but time is short....what's your opinion ?