If a  podiatrist did not complete a certified podiatric residency program, why discriminate against them? 

Disclaimer: do not rely on my personal opinions but consult with a licensed health care attorney.

Daniel Chaskin class of 84  NYCPM

Please check out the following websites:

http://www.pecosregistration.com

Asking for help and suggestions on how to improve the website

http://www.footphysician.org

This website is dedicated to expressing the personal opinions

of podiatrists that lack podiatric residency training which if taken when

they graduated would have been outdated. Such opinons include

how a lack of completing such outdated teaching programs has

impacted on podiatrists ability to be licensed in every state

in our country. Please understand that a podiatrist is not

defined as a physician in every state and I feel this should be

changed. 

disclaimer: the above represents only the personal opinons of the

auther and are not to be relied upon. Please consult with a health care attorney

in your state.

podiatrist1@optonline.net

Daniel Chaskin class of 1984

Well is nice to see someone passionate about their beliefs.  

One thing to keep in mind is that no system is perfect and I am an advocate for uniform training and skill.  Do not forget that the older doctors, yes I am on my way, do have mandated CME's every year that do help keep you current.  There have been some posts that uniform training is not possible which in all due respect I feel that is a self serving silly position.  

In regards to your position and several others I have seen a certain level of success with this approach.  Work hard and do good work at a hospital that grants you privileges and  keep a good, detailed record of your cases.  After a certain case amount 100-200, reapply to another hospital and use that list as a demonstration of your abilities.  I have seen that work locally with some of the Podiatrists.   The challenge is, lets say that you are a wonderful skilled doctor with good outcomes that just wants to work and provide good patient care.  For every one of "you" there are several others that will do procedures that they should not do and that only leads to problems for everyone.

Food for thought.

Good luck.

Karr 

One thing to keep in mind is that no system is perfect and I am an advocate for uniform training and skill.

            How can anyone advocate uniform training and skill when state licensing boards

do not recognize experience of years in podiatric practice in another state as meeting

the criteria for basic licensure? Furthermore has any podiatric association had the compassion to

spend any of it's funds educating the state podiatric licensure boards and trying to have them

change their local state laws to have compassion for podiatrists who want to retain their practices

and at the same time expand or move into other states? The education involves a realistic

grasp of my opinion that uniform podiatric training becomes outdated and meaningless

in crendetialling if a state trully cares about the quality of podiatric care and current

competence of podiatrists. If I had experience doing joint implant surgery, such experience

is currently meaning less regarding my current competency as a podiatrist because such

experience is outdated. When the experience was current was in 1991 and this was not

recognized by state licensing boards that required a podiatric residency training program that

could be outdated if completed more than 10 years ago

Daniel Chaskin DPM

podiatrist1@optonline.net

There is a state New Jersey that recognizes experience gained in practice in

granting licensure yet please notice it is not the state board of

podiatry but the New Jersey State Board of Medicine.

disclaimer: Please do not rely upon any of my personal opinions but consult

with a licensed health care attorney in your state.

Daniel Chaskin DPM

podiatrist1@optonline.net

I just read that in order to get licensed in California, you would have had to have taken the PMLexis with in the last ten years even if you have been practicing full time. The States must think that " ten " is a magic number and all learning previous doesn't count.

Podiatrists that lack the completion of out dated podiatric residency training

may be at an unfair disadvantage in podiatric malpractice lawsuits.

These podiatrists may be currently competent yet they are made out to be

not "formally residency trained" Formal residency training in podiatry is

irrelevant if such training would have been outdated training

which is in my opinion greater than 10 years old.

Why not check out the following video and information at  http://www.suephysician.com

disclaimer: Please do not rely upon any of my personal opinions but consult

with a licensed health care attorney in your state.

If you notice lately on PMNews there has been a great deal of discussion about the fact that hospitals are denying podiatrists privileges based on BOARD CERTIFICATION. Kind of reverse discrimination - LOL.

These doctors who apparently did go through residency programs and passed boards are being denied privileges based on the fact that they did not then go on to stay current by doing enough cases in each category. You need to find one of those right-minded hospitals who believe that practice makes perfect or one that allows proctoring for privileging.

This is certainly a new paradigm that I am unfamiliar with.

I served on an APMA commttee years and years ago and worked with some old surgeons who argued that the "new kids" just weren't trained well enough. The "new kids" were ones from two-year programs and often additional fellowships. The older surgeons had done one-year programs. I thought it was funny that they thought one year of training in the 60's was better than three in the 80's. Go figure.

I say give everyone who wants one a chance! Some of the best practitioners are those who have the most experience, regardless of a residency.

Regarding this comment : I served on an APMA commttee years and years ago and worked with some old surgeons who argued that the "new kids" just weren't trained well enough. The "new kids" were ones from two-year programs and often additional fellowships. The older surgeons had done one-year programs. I thought it was funny that they thought one year of training in the 60's was better than three in the 80's. Go figure.

                     I was not that the one year training in the 60's was better than three in the 80's

but that a "new kid" coming out of a 2 year program lacked the experience as "surgeon of record"

because they always were technically assisting the surgeon of record and they never were observed

doing a procedure as "surgeon of record" with the legal responsiblilty and ramifications that come with

"surgeon of record". Experience as a assistant is different than experience as a surgeon of

record because the surgeon of record legally has the final say. Also perhaps a 2 year program did

not compare with the current experience of the older surgeons, this too may have been a factor.

I was not present and do not know. I do know of the importance of being surgeon of record vs

being an assistant.

disclaimer: The above are my own personal opinions. Do not rely on them but instead consult with

an attorney licensed in your state.

Daniel Chaskin DPM