Search

Background: 2022 marks a decade since the profession of podiatry secured independent prescribing rights in the UK. Widely viewed as a significant milestone, its advent appeared to herald a new age of practice, with increased autonomy, a broader scope of practice and improved patient care. Access to any medicine within the British National Formulary (with a few notable exceptions) seemed to signal an end to the perennial difficulties and frequent disappointments in obtaining ease of access to medicines necessary for effective practice. Main body: Recent attempts to expand the scope of prescribing practice to include access to a broader range of controlled drugs (CDs) have led to unanticipated complications which may even threaten existing rights. These issues highlight the limitations of current independent prescribing and the continuing inability of podiatrists to access certain key medicines, primarily controlled drugs. Reliance on specified 'lists' of approved medicines, whether a controlled drug list for prescribers or the use of statutory exemptions by non-prescriber podiatrists, remain inflexible and difficult to change. The data underpinning much of this paper is derived from the work undertaken by the authors as representatives of podiatry on NHS England's Chief Professions' Officers' Medicines project, in particular involving submissions to the Commission on Human Medicines and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Medicines, spanning the years 2017–2021. It describes a complex process, and highlights a misalignment between two legislative frameworks that threaten to unravel existing rights. Short conclusion: Ongoing difficulties relating to controlled drugs illustrate the problematic nature of current supply, administration and prescribing rights in podiatry. Efforts to keep pace with periodic legal reclassifications of medicines are constrained by limited and inflexible legal mechanisms, and formal approval for extended access via prescribing remains unpredictable and complex. For prescriber and non-prescriber1 (1Non- prescriber podiatrists are those who are neither supplementary or independent prescribers, but do enjoy existing administration and supply rights to certain medicines.) podiatrists alike, the profession of podiatry faces a new challenge to its ability to access medicines, and to realise its full clinical potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interprofessional conflict has largely been understood in terms of jurisdictional disputes centred on contested task domains and role boundaries, with less attention paid to the symbolic value associated with specific professional titles. Bourdieu's concepts of symbolic power and capital help to shed light on the opposition of the medical profession in the UK to the adoption of the title "podiatric surgeon" by non-medically qualified podiatrists undertaking foot surgery. Focusing on the medical discourse evident in press and media coverage of the dispute over a 12-year period gives insights into the use of strategies of symbolic violence aimed at retaining control over the exclusive use of prestigious forms of professional title. Titles, as symbolic capital, are understood as central to professions' struggle for legitimacy and recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although dermatology, as a medical subject, has been a facet of the training and education of podiatrists for many years, it is, arguably, only in recent years that the speciality of podiatric dermatology has emerged within the profession. Some indication of this gradual development may be identified through a content analysis of the podiatric literature in the UK, spanning a 21 year timeframe. Method: 6 key professional journals were selected for content analysis in order to provide a picture of the emergence and development of podiatric dermatology over a period extending from 1989 to 2010. Both syntactical and thematic unitization were deployed in the analysis, revealing both manifest and latent content. Categories were devised using a prior coding, a codebook produced to define relevant concepts and category characteristics, and the coding scheme subject to an assessment of reliability. Results: 1611 units appeared in the 6 journals across a 21 year timeframe. 88% (n = 1417) occurred in one journal (Podiatry Now and its predecessors). Modal categories within all journals included course adverts (n = 673), commercial adverts (n = 562) and articles by podiatrists (n = 133). There was an overall rise from 40 per annum in 1989, to over 100 in 2010. A wider range of dermatological topics were addressed, ranging from fungal nail infections to melanoma. Conclusions: It is evident from this analysis that there has been an increasing focus on dermatology as a topic within the main podiatric journals in the UK over the last 21 years, primarily reflecting a rise in commercial advertising and an increase in academic dermatology related publications. Whilst earlier publications tended to focus on warts and fungal infections, more recent publications address a broader spectrum of topics. Changes in prescribing rights may be relevant to these findings, as may the enhanced professional and regulatory body requirements on continuing professional development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent events in the USA and UK have raised questions about the appropriate definition and application of the terms 'foot' and 'surgeon'. In this editorial, we explore these issues and clarify our use of these terms in the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The last decade has witnessed a rapid transformation in the role boundaries of the allied health professions, enabled through the creation of new roles and the expansion of existing, traditional roles. A strategy of health care 'modernisation' has encompassed calls for the redrawing of professional boundaries and identities, linked with demands for greater workforce flexibility. Several tasks and roles previously within the exclusive domain of medicine have been delegated to, or assumed by, allied health professionals, as the workforce is reshaped to meet the challenges posed by changing demographic, social and political contexts. The prescribing of medicines by non-medically qualified healthcare professionals, and in particular the podiatry profession, reflects these changes. Methods: Using a range of key primary documentary sources derived from published material in the public domain and unpublished material in private possession, this paper traces the development of contemporary UK and Australasian podiatric prescribing, access, supply and administration of medicines. Documentary sources include material from legislative, health policy, regulatory and professional bodies (including both State and Federal sources in Australia). Results: Tracing a chronological, comparative, socio-historical account of the emergence and development of 'prescribing' in podiatry in both Australasia and the UK enables an analysis of the impact of health policy reforms on the use of, and access to, medicines by podiatrists. The advent of neo-liberal healthcare policies, coupled with demands for workforce flexibility and role transfer within a climate of demographic, economic and social change has enabled allied health professionals to undertake an expanding number of tasks involving the sale, supply, administration and prescription of medicines. Conclusion: As a challenge to medical dominance, these changes, although driven by wider healthcare policy, have met with resistance. As anticipated in the theory of medical dominance, inter-professional jurisdictional disputes centred on the right to access, administer, supply and prescribe medicines act as obstacles to workforce change. Nevertheless, the broader policy agenda continues to ensure workforce redesign in which podiatry has assumed wider roles and responsibilities in prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]