David Lunz, former president of the Australian Orthopaedic Association’s Foot and Ankle Society, said patients would still be misled by the new title and “operating podiatrist” would be more accurate.
“The term ‘surgical’ has the connotation of being a surgeon,” he said. “It’s still a problem.”
Loading
Lunz said it was ridiculous to suggest current standards were sufficient, because the training was not accepted worldwide and was not approved by the Australian Medical Council or any mainstream surgical college.
He rejected claims that concerns held by orthopaedic surgeons were motivated by a “turf war” and said he had treated a handful of botched cases in recent years.
“The impact is devastating,” he said. “Some of their problems are simply not fixable. That’s the issue.”
Following the joint media investigation, Melbourne Law School fellow Ron Paterson was appointed to lead a review that examined the higher-than-average rate of complaints about podiatric surgeons.
He examined AHPRA’s notifications data covering a 13-year period, and found complaints about podiatric surgeons were 8.8 times higher than those about specialist orthopaedic surgeons and five times higher than for general podiatrists.
Paterson determined there was a “pattern of dissatisfaction” but not “widespread safety and quality problems”.
“There is some evidence that some procedures done by a small number of podiatric surgeons are not safe or of acceptable quality. Some patients have suffered significant harm,” he found.
Paterson’s review found patients were “alarmed to learn their podiatric surgeon was not a medical practitioner” and the continued use of the title was “confusing and problematic”.
While backing stripping these practitioners of the title “surgeon”, the review stated it was not possible to stop them using “doctor” as this was not a protected title.
Loading
The title-change was one of 14 recommendations that spanned registration, training, title, advertising, handling of complaints and safety and quality of the system for podiatric surgeons.
AHPRA has already implemented three other recommendations, a spokesperson said, including cracking down on false advertising by some podiatric surgeons to take a “tougher, deterrent approach to repeat offenders”, and improving clinical advice and regulatory tools to police bad behaviour. The spokesperson said the remaining recommendations would soon be implemented.
Paterson’s review also acknowledged areas for improvement in broader healthcare regulation, including backing calls for greater transparency over prior complaints and medical negligence lawsuits against practitioners so patients could make informed choices about their healthcare.
After the review was published last March, the Podiatry Board of Australia completed additional consultation on the proposed title change, which included 240 submissions from practitioners, professional bodies, patients, insurers and regulators.
AHPRA said the title change reflected the “paramount principles of the national law, which include public protection and supporting community confidence in regulated health professions”, AHPRA said.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
