Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1002/jfa2.70007
Alan M Borthwick, Susan Nancarrow, Ivan Bristow, Catherine Bowen
{"title":"Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia.","authors":"Alan M Borthwick, Susan Nancarrow, Ivan Bristow, Catherine Bowen","doi":"10.1002/jfa2.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In October 2023, the Podiatry Board of Australia commissioned an independent review of the regulation of podiatric surgery in Australia, with a remit to re-evaluate the regulatory framework, identify any risks to patient safety and recommend improvements to public protection. It reported in March 2024 and set out 14 key recommendations. The review was prompted by a number of complaints about podiatric surgeons but also reflected calls for reform by the medical profession and several critical media reports. This paper sets out to examine the review report, alongside the concerns of the medical profession and the media articles expressed within it, through the lens of an established sociological framework focused on interprofessional conflict and the contested use of professional titles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As a review rather than the research paper, the Independent Review of Podiatric Surgery (the 'Paterson Report') served as data for the sociological analysis, adopting a Neo-Weberian and Bordieuan framework to examine the strategies adopted by the medical profession and media reports cited in the report, consistent with the exercise of professional power.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sociological analysis provides insights into the ways in which professions seek to maintain symbolic, social, cultural and economic privileges and rewards through the exclusion of competitors, using strategies such as social closure, symbolic violence, symbolic devaluation, gatekeeper roles, and jurisdictional disputes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The review report acknowledges the influence of the medical profession and its opposition to the practice of podiatric surgery and use of the title 'podiatric surgeon'. The arguments made and strategies deployed are consistent with those found in the wider literature. In light of these findings, the implications for the future of podiatric surgery are considered in terms of professional practice, use of professional title, and access to public funding.</p>","PeriodicalId":49164,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Foot and Ankle Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11489128/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Foot and Ankle Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jfa2.70007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In October 2023, the Podiatry Board of Australia commissioned an independent review of the regulation of podiatric surgery in Australia, with a remit to re-evaluate the regulatory framework, identify any risks to patient safety and recommend improvements to public protection. It reported in March 2024 and set out 14 key recommendations. The review was prompted by a number of complaints about podiatric surgeons but also reflected calls for reform by the medical profession and several critical media reports. This paper sets out to examine the review report, alongside the concerns of the medical profession and the media articles expressed within it, through the lens of an established sociological framework focused on interprofessional conflict and the contested use of professional titles.

Methods: As a review rather than the research paper, the Independent Review of Podiatric Surgery (the 'Paterson Report') served as data for the sociological analysis, adopting a Neo-Weberian and Bordieuan framework to examine the strategies adopted by the medical profession and media reports cited in the report, consistent with the exercise of professional power.

Results: The sociological analysis provides insights into the ways in which professions seek to maintain symbolic, social, cultural and economic privileges and rewards through the exclusion of competitors, using strategies such as social closure, symbolic violence, symbolic devaluation, gatekeeper roles, and jurisdictional disputes.

Conclusions: The review report acknowledges the influence of the medical profession and its opposition to the practice of podiatric surgery and use of the title 'podiatric surgeon'. The arguments made and strategies deployed are consistent with those found in the wider literature. In light of these findings, the implications for the future of podiatric surgery are considered in terms of professional practice, use of professional title, and access to public funding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有争议的角色界限和专业职称:澳大利亚足外科独立审查的影响。
简介:2023 年 10 月,澳大利亚足病委员会委托对澳大利亚足病外科手术的监管进行独立审查,其职责是重新评估监管框架,确定患者安全所面临的任何风险,并提出改善公众保护的建议。审查于 2024 年 3 月完成报告,并提出了 14 项主要建议。此次审查的起因是一些针对足病外科医生的投诉,同时也反映了医学界要求改革的呼声以及媒体的一些批评性报道。本文旨在通过一个既定的社会学框架,以专业间冲突和有争议的专业职称使用为重点,对审查报告以及其中所表达的医学界和媒体文章的关切进行研究:作为一篇评论而非研究论文,《足外科独立评论》("帕特森报告")作为社会学分析的数据,采用了新韦伯和波迪安框架来研究报告中引用的医学界和媒体报道所采取的与行使专业权力相一致的策略:结果:社会学分析深入揭示了各专业如何通过排斥竞争者,采用社会封闭、象征性暴力、象征性贬值、把关人角色和管辖权争议等策略,来维持象征性、社会性、文化性和经济性特权和回报:审查报告承认医学界的影响及其对足病外科实践和使用 "足病外科医生 "头衔的反对。所提出的论点和采取的策略与更广泛的文献中的论点和策略是一致的。根据这些研究结果,我们从专业实践、专业职称的使用和获得公共资金等方面考虑了足病外科未来的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.30%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, the official journal of the Australian Podiatry Association and The College of Podiatry (UK), is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of policy, organisation, delivery and clinical practice related to the assessment, diagnosis, prevention and management of foot and ankle disorders. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research covers a wide range of clinical subject areas, including diabetology, paediatrics, sports medicine, gerontology and geriatrics, foot surgery, physical therapy, dermatology, wound management, radiology, biomechanics and bioengineering, orthotics and prosthetics, as well the broad areas of epidemiology, policy, organisation and delivery of services related to foot and ankle care. The journal encourages submissions from all health professionals who manage lower limb conditions, including podiatrists, nurses, physical therapists and physiotherapists, orthopaedists, manual therapists, medical specialists and general medical practitioners, as well as health service researchers concerned with foot and ankle care. The Australian Podiatry Association and the College of Podiatry (UK) have reserve funds to cover the article-processing charge for manuscripts submitted by its members. Society members can email the appropriate contact at Australian Podiatry Association or The College of Podiatry to obtain the corresponding code to enter on submission.
期刊最新文献
Resources for innovative learning of anatomy and foot ossification: Graphic design and virtual reality. 3D-printed custom ankle braces for people with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: A pilot study. An evaluation of a virtual musculoskeletal podiatry service implemented to address prolonged National Health Service waiting times. An overview of the risk factors for producing fifth metatarsal fracture in sports activities: A systematic review. Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1